e-y 


UNION  OE  DISUNION. 

THE  UNION  CANNOT  AND  SHALL  NOT  BE  DISSOLVED. 
MR.  LINCOLN  NOT  AN  ABOLITIONIST. 

SPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  JOHN  M.  BOTTS, 

AT   HOLCOMBE  HALL, 

IN  LYNCHBURa,  VIRGINIA,  ON  THURSDAY  EVENING,  OCTOBER  18. 


On  Thursday  evening  Holcombe  Hall  was  crowded  to  hear  the  address  of  Mr,  Bolts. 
His  appearance  on  the  platform  was  the  signal  for  the  wildest  enthusiasm,  which  con- 
tinued for  several  minut(^s.  "When  quiet  was  restored,  John  H.  Speed,  Esq.,  introduced 
the  distinguished  gentleman  to  his  audience  in  a  brief  speech,  at  the  conclusion  of  which 
Mr.  Botts  came  forward  and  addressed  them  as  follows  ; 

Fellow-Citizens: — This  being  the  first  time  I  have  had  an  opportunity  of  present- 
ing myself  to  the  people  of  Lynchburg,  it  becomes  me  to  return  my  acknowledgments 
for  the  greeting  I  have  received ;  although  I  must  confess  I  know  not  the  party  to  which  I 
am  indebted  for  this  flattering  reception,  for  I  stand  here  in  rather  a  new  character — that 
of  a  representative  of  the  Democratic  party.  [Laughter.]  If  I  do  not  play  mj'  part 
well,  it  is  not  for  the  want  of  good  will  towards  that  party,  for,  as  you  well  know,  the 
kindest  and  most  amiable  relations  have  always  subsisted  between  us.  [Renewed  laugh- 
ter,] Yet  I  do  not  know  whether  I  shall  come  up  to  the  expectations  of  some  of  my 
Democratic  friends,  for  a  paper  has  been  put  into  my  hands  by  which  I  ascertain,  with 
some  surprise,  tliat  it  is  expected  I  will  make  at  least  one  th(Kisand  votes  for  the  Demo- 
cratic party  by  my  speech  to-night.  [Laughter.]  But  I  trust  they  will  be  content,  when 
I  have  done,  and  in  a  spirit  of  charity  to  compromise  for  half  that  number,  [Great 
Laughter,]  But,  in  all  seriousness,  for  I  have  little  time  for  preliminary  remaiks,  I 
trust  I  shall  bo  able  to  gain  your  attention,  and  that  you  will  be  patient  while  I  deliver 
to  you  my  views  on  all  the  issues  involved  in  the  present  Presidential  camjiaign. 

Fellow-citizens,  I  am  not  here  in  the  character  that  I  have  often  occupied  in  my 
younger  days;  I  am  not  here  as  a  partisan.  I  have  jiassed  the  period  of  life  when  it  be- 
comes me,  in  my  judgment,  to  play  that  part,  and  no  small  share  of  experience  in  political 
life  teaches  me  that  I  have  a  country  to  serve  and  to  save,  if  I  can,  which  rises  very  far 
above  all  party  considerations  ;  and  I  hesitate  not  to  say  that  if  this  were  a  mere  party 
contest,  for  the  defeat  of  this  party  or  for  the  triumph  of  that,  I  should  leave  it  to  younger 
and  more  active  men.  But  when  I  saw  disunion  and  treason,  with  a  brazen  front,  and 
with  a  bold  and  defiant  tongue,  stalking  through  this  glorious  old  Commonwealth  of 
Virginia,  I  felt  I  had  no  right  to  devote  myself  to  retirement — that  my  country  was  en- 
titled to  what  inrtuence  I  might  be  able  to  exert;  and,  casting  all  other  considerations 
aside,  I  took  the  field  with  a  determination  to  discharge  my  share  of  duty.  [Applause.] 
In  the  remarks  I  propose  to  admit,  I  beg  leave  to  say  that  I  do  not  address  myself  to  the 
young,  the  thoughtless,  the  inconsiderate,  and  the  unrefl<>cting.  I  propose  to  address 
Tnj'self  t(»  the  calm  reflections  of  intelligent  men — men  who  are  capable  of  appreciating 
the  argument  which  I  shall  otfer,  and  wlio  valu<'  the  institutions  of  the  country.  I  know 
very  well,  gentlemen,  that  what  I  shall  say  will  not  be  api>roved  by  all.     I  know  I  shall 

(1) 


2  SPEECH  OE  THE  HON.  JOHN  M.  BOTTS. 

be,  as  T  have  been  heretofore,  grossly  misrepresented,  vilified,  and  denounced.     I  know 
I  sliall  be  called  an  Abolitionist. 
A  Voice — Of  course. 

Of  course — and  why  not?  Because  I  do  not  vote  the  Democratic  ticket.  And  yet, 
when  I  reflect  that  such  men  as  Henry  Clay,  William  Henry  Harrison,  Zachary  Taylor, 
and  Winfield  Scott,  all  natives  of  Virginia,  have  been  held,  by  that  party  which  de- 
nounces me,  as  unsound  on  the  institution  of  Slavery — as  being,  in  truth.  Abolitionists  of 
the  darkest  dye,  and  that  such  men  as  Martin  Van  Buren,  Gen.  Cass,  Franklin  Pierce, 
and  .James  Buchanan,  are  only  to  be  trusted  on  this  question,  I  must  say  I  am  reconciled 
to  the  denunciation  of  the  party.  Such  a  charge  gives  me  no  annoyance.  I  feel  as  com- 
fortable under  it  as  a  man  who  has  a  note  in  Bank,  with  a  plenty  of  money  in  his  pocket; 
he  can  discharge  the  obligation  whenever  it  meets  his  convenience;  and  in  like  manner, 
I  can  relieve  myself  of  this  imputation,  whenever  I  desire  to  do  so,  or  that  it  occasions 
me  the  least  disturbance.  All  I  have  to  do  is  to  vote  the  Democratic  ticket,  and  the 
charge  will  never  be  made  again.  For  I  have  never  heard  the  charge  made  yet  against 
one  of  their  own  party,  and  have  never  known  one  of  prominence  in  our  party  against 
whom  it  was  not  made.  I  gave  my  answer  to  the  foul  libel  in  1856,  when  I  said,  "Ho 
who  calls  me  an  Abolitionist,  is  either  a  knave  or  a  fool,  and  not  unfrequently  both."  I 
have  nothing  to  add  to,  or  take  from  what  I  then  said,  I  treat  the  whole  thing  with 
contempt. 

I  propose  now  to  enter  upon  the  discussion  of  some  questions  involved  in  the  present 
canvass.  A  very  extraordinary  state  of  things  exists  in  the  country.  AVe  have  not  only, 
for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  Democratic  party,  two  candidates  presented  to  the 
people,  but  we  have  threats  of  disunion,  more  or  less,  in  every  Sotithern  state,  depending 
upon  certain  contingencies.  An  imcharitable  mind  might  come  to  the  conclusion,  per- 
haps, that  the  reasons  of  the  division  had  arisen  from  the  fact  of  an  empty  treasury,  for  I 
believe  nobody  ever  heard  of  a  division  of  the  Democratic  party  as  long  as  there  remained 
any  money  in  the  treasury  that  they  could  appropriate  to  themselves ;  but  having  spent 
$17,000,000  that  were  in  the  treasury  at  the  time  they  came  into  power,  and  created  a 
debt  of  S60, 000,000  more,  it  might  be  that  they  had  divided  for  the  purpose  of  enabling 
us  to  get  into  power  that  we  might  replenish  it  for  them.  [Laughter  and  applattse.]  But 
I  think  there  are  other  reasons  for  it,  which  1  shall  attempt  to  make  manifest.  When 
you  get  into  conversation  with  those  gentlemen  who  talk  in  this  way  of  the  contingency 
to  which  I  refer,  you  will  find  they  have  almost  as  many  reasons  as  there  are  persons 
you  encounter.  If  you  ask  one  of  the  Breckinridge  portion  of  the  Democracy  why  they 
have  two  candidates  in  the  field,  and  why  they  could  not  support  Douglas,  who  was  the 
regular  nominee  of  the  National  Democratic  party,  if  such  a  party  can  be  supposed  to 
exist,  they  tell  you  it  was  because  Douglas  was  the  advocate  of  the  doctrine  of  Squatter 
Sovereignty,  and  that  he  stands  on  a  platform  they  cannot  support,  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  in  the  Charleston  Convention  they  voted  fifty-seven  '  times  for  Mr.  Hunter — I 
mean  the  delegation  from  Virginia — upon  the  identical  platform  that  Douglas  nOw  occu' 
pies.  But  I  take  issue  with  the  gentlemen,  and  1  deny  that  Squatter  Sovereignty  has 
anything  to  do  with  the  question  between  the  Breckinridge  and  Douglas  men.  I  deny  it 
because  I  make  the  assertion,  broadly  and  without  qualificatii)n  as  far  as  my  knowledge 
extends,  that  there  was  not  a  Democrat  from  the  Southern  States  in  the  Charleston  Con- 
vention that  did  not  stand  unqualifiedly  and  overwhelmingly  committed  to  Squatter  Sove- 
reiarntv.  Thev  were  all  its  advocates,  and  thev  all  assisted  as  far  as  thev  could,  whether 
in  Congress  or  out  of  it,  in  establishing  that  doctrine.  What  is  the  doctrine  of  Squatter 
Sovereignty?  It  is  non-intervention.  What  is  non-intervention?  It  is  non-interfe- 
rence. Non-interference  on  the  part  of  whom  ?  Non-interference  on  the  part  of  Con- 
gress. On  the  part  of  Congress  with  whom  ?  With  the  people  of  the  territories.  And 
during  the  discussion  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  this  great  fundamental  feature  of  the 
bill  was  specially  recommended  by  our  Democratic  representatives  from  the  South  to 
their  constituents  on  that  especial  ground,  and  no  other.  It  would  be  no  very  difiicult 
task  to  take  up  The  Congressional  Globe  and  show  that  there  was  not  a  Southern  repre- 
sentative who  advocated  that  bill,  that  did  not  pvit  it  upon  the  ground  of  non-interven- 
tion, as  being  the  feature  of  the  bill  which  most  recommended  it  to  the  country.  I  shall 
not  undertake  to  do  this,  but  I  propose  to  submit  authority  that  will  be  as  conclusive  on 
the  subject  as  if  I  were  to  read  every  speech  of  those  who  addressed  Congress  on  the 
subject. 

First  of  all,  take  Mr.  Cass,  the  present  Democratic  Secretary  of  State,  and  we  find  that 
a  day  or  two  after  the  passage  of  the  bill,  he  said  : 

"  On  the  morning  of  the  passage  of  the  bill,  I  congratulate  the  Senate  on  the  triumph 
of  Squatter  Sovereignty,  and  I  have  just  cause  for  congratulation.  Many  of  us  have 
labored  long  and  zealously  for  the  recognition  of  political  freedom,  and  have  been  exposed 
to  misrepresentation  and  denunciation.  When,  therefore  a  bill  had  received  the  sanction 
of  the  Senate,  which  conferred  a  greater  freedom  on  the  Territories  than  had  ever  before 


V  ^^.-*«i 


a     M     «     -«      «     W    V    ^V^-^VAl 


Y?  ^    '/?/  5-f"     SPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  JOHN  M.  BOTTS.  3 

been  grnnted  to  such  local  communities,  yielding  up  all  the  supervisory  authority  by 
Congress  over  their  legislation,  .  .  1  felt  thut  a  great  advance  had  been  made  in  the  pro- 
gre!»s  of  free  principles." 

There,  then,  was  the  congratulation  of  one  of  the  foremost  men  of  the  party,  and  one 
of  the  ablest  expounders  of  law  and  the  Constitution  in  the  Senate  of  the  Unitid  States. 
Did  any  member  of  the  Democratic  party  from  the  South  rise  in  his  place  and  dispute 
this  authority  of  Gen.  Cass,  that  th(^  doctrine  of  Squatter  Sovereignty  was  established  by 
the  passage  of  the  bill  ?  Far  from  it.  The  next  who  spoke  upon  the  subject  was  our  own 
representative,  ]\[r.  Mason,  and  what  does  he  say?  This  gentleman,  who  now  advocates 
the  election  of  Breckinridge,  and  opposses  the  election  of  Douglas  upon  the  ground  that 
he  cannot  sustain  the  doctrine  of  Squatter  Sovereignty,  said  to  the  Senate  : 

"  From  the  experience  which  the  Southern  States  have  had  of  the  tendencies  of  Con- 
gress heretofore  on  the  subject  of  Slavery,  I  do  not  know  that  we  may  not  quite  as  safely 
trust  the  people,  come  from  where  they  may,  as  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  with 
that  institution." 

Again.  In  the  Congressional  Globe  of  the  34th  Congress,  1855-56,  we  find  the  follow, 
ing  language  employed  by  Mr.  Mason,  in  his  construction  of  the  Cincinnati  platform  and 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill : 

'♦I  do  know  what  was  the  issue  on  this  subject  (slavery  in  the  Territories)  which  was 
presented  in  the  political  platform  adopted  at  Cincinnati  by  the  Democratic  party.  That 
issue  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  AY  hat  was  that?  The  Territorial 
Government  was  so  organized  then  as  to  admit  citizens  of  all  the  States,  whether  free  or 
slave,  to  take  their  property  into  the  Territories,  and  when  they  organized  themselves,  or 
were  organized  under  the  law,  into  a  legislative  body,  then  to  determine  for  themselves 
whether  this  institution  shall  exist  among  them  or  not." 

So  much  for  Mr.  Mason. 

But  this  is  not  all.  In  the  year  1856,  on  the  occasion  of  the  anniversary  of  ^Mr.  Clay's 
birthday,  the  llith  day  of  April,  at  a  place  called  Ashland,  formerly  called  Slash  Cottage 
— which  you  have  all  seen  on  your  way  to  the  North — a  short  distance  from  Kichmond ; 
a  large  number  of  distinguished  gentlemen  were  invited  to  participate  in  the  celebration 
of  th:it  daj'.  Among  others  was  the  then  Attorney-General  of  the  United  States,  the 
Hon.  Caleb  Cushing,  late  presiding  officer  of  the  Charleston  Convention,  and  subsequently 
presiding  officer  of  the  Seceding  Convention  at  Baltimore,  and  who  now  expresses  a  holy 
iiorror  at  this  doctrine  of  Squatter  Sovereignty.  Mr.  Cushing  came  to  Ashland  as  the 
law  otticer  of  the  Government,  the  highest  legal  officer  in  the  United  States,  and  he  came 
for  the  purpose,  as  it  appeared,  of  giving  a  legal,  technical  construction  to  the  bill,  for  that 
constituted  the  main  features  of  his  remarks.  As  you  will  perceive,  he  was  anxious  to 
keep  good  company  by  associating  the  name  of  Henry  Clay  with  the  doctrine  of  Squatter 
•Sovereignty,  which  high  honor  1  took  occasion  to  disclaim  for  Mr.  Clay  in  the  papers  of 
next  day  :  and  before  I  read  what  he  said,  3'ou  will  pardaoi  me  for  saying  that  he  often 
uses  words  that  even  educated  men  know  not  the  meaning  of.  He  has  been  a  professor  of 
languages,  and  is  fond  of  indulging  in  grandiloquent,  or  what  is  commonly  termed  high- 
fuluda  words.  And  you  will  pardon  me  if  I  undertake  to  explain  what  he  means,  as  I 
go  along. 

"  I  anticipate  that  many  eloquent  and  stirring  things  will  be  said  by  gentlemen  present, 
in  exhibition  of  the  character,  of  the  career,  and  of  the  fame  of  Henry  Clay.  I  will 
venture  to  stand  upon  a  single  point  in  that  great  brilliant,  and  glorious  career.  I  will 
refer  to  that  tinal  struggle,  of  the  patriotic  efforts  of  Henry  Clay — that  final  struggle  in 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  when  he  cooperated  with  others  of  his  compeers,  and 
among  them  gentlemen  here  present,  in  those  elforts  which  resulted  in  the  establishment, 
I  will  venture  to  say,  in  the  perpetual  and  unshakable  establishment  in  the  public  law 
and  political  theory  of  the  United  States,  of  the  absolute  equality,  the  coequal  political 
ftutoiiorny"  (any  other  man-would  have  said  the  right  of  self-government,  for  that  is  what 
autonomy  means)  "of  each  and  all  those  States;  the  great  corollary  of  that  doctrine  is 
the  establishment  of  the  corresponding  theory  that  each  distinct  inchoate  State"  (anybody 
else  would  have  said  each  distinct  Territory)  "  of  this  Union  shall  determine  for  itself 
what  shall  b(^  its  own  institutions.  I  say,  if  he  left  no  other  legacy  to  his  countrymen,  it 
would  be  sufficient  to  perpetuate  his  memory,  that  luf  aided  in  the  establishment  of  that 

1)rinciple  which  h-^s  now  become  fixed  and  irrevocable  in  spite  of  all  the  howls  of  faction, 
n  all  parts  of  this  Union  it  must  become  the  unanimous  ci>nviction  of  the  people  of  these 
United  States  that  whether  a  State  in  this  Union  is  or  is  not  to  regulate  labor,  in  this  or 
that  manner,  depends  upon  the  will  of  the  people  of  that  State  or  Territory." 

"  Of  that  State  or  Territory."  So  that  w  have  the  authority  of  the  law  officer  of  the 
Government  as  to  what  was  meant  by  the  bill ;  that  it  has  become  a  fixed  and  irrevocable 
law  of  the  land,  in  spite  of  all  the  howls  of  faction,  that  the  Territories  shall  determine 
for  themselves  whether  or  no  Slavery  shall  be  admitted  within  their  borders. 

If  that  is  not  enough,  let  me  proceed  a  little  further,  and  give  you  the  testimony  of  two 


4  SPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  JOHN  M.  BOTTS. 

otlier  important  gentlemen  ;  and,  I  will  here  remark  that  it  seems  to  have  been  a  most 
miraculous  accident  that  these  gentlemen  should  have  fallen,  in  their  hot  haste  to  condemn 
and  denounce  all  who  advocate  the  doctrine  of  Squatter  Sovereignty — it  was  truly- miracu- 
lous that  they  should  have  fallen  on  two  gentlemen  who  occupied  precisely  and  identically 
the  same  position  that  Douglas  occupies  on  the  question.  I  daresay  many  of  you  have  seen 
this  before,  but  it  is  necessary,  for  the  argument,  that  I  shall  present  it  for  your  con- 
sideration again.     Mr.  Breckinridge  says  : 

"Among  many  misrepresentations  sent  to  the  country  by  some  of  the  enemies  of  this 
bill,  perhaps  none  is  more  flagrant  than  the  charge  that  it  proposes  to  legislate  Slavery 
into  Kansas  and  Nebraska.  Sir,  if  the  bill  contained  such  a  feature  it  would  not  receive 
my  vote.  The  right  to  establish  involves  the  co-relative  right  to  prohibit ;  and,  denying 
both,  I  would  vote  for  neither The  eifect  of  the  repeal  (of  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise), therefore,  is  neither  to  establish  nor  to  exclude  Slavery,  but  to  leave  the  future 
condition  of  the  territories  dependent  wholly  upon  the  action  of  the  inhabitants,  subject 
only  to  such  limitations  as  the  Federal  Constitution  may  impose It  will  bo  ob- 
served that  the  right  of  the  people  to  regulate,  in  their  own  way,  all  their  domestic  institu- 
tions, is  left  wholly  untouched,  except  that  whatever  is  done — must  be  done  in  accordance 
wdth  the  Constitution — the  supreme  law  for  us  all." 

In  1856  he  says  : 

"The  recent  legislation  of  Congress  (on  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill)  respecting  domestic 
Slavery,  derived  as  it  has  been  from  the  original  and  pure  fountain  of  legitimate  political 
power,  the  will  of  the  majority,  promises  ere  long  to  allay  the  dangerous  excitement. 
This  legislation  is  founded  upon  principles  as  ancient  as  free  government  itself,  and  in  ac- 
cordance with  them  has  simply  declared  that  the  people  of  a  territory,  like  those  of  a  State, 
shall  decide  for  themselves  whether  Slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits." 

Again,  he  said  in  1856,  after  his  election  to  the  Vice-Presidency: 

"The  whole  power  of  the  Democratic  organization  is  pledged  to  the  following  proposi- 
tions: That  Congress  shall  not  intervene  on  this  subject  (of  Slavery)  in  the  States,  in  the 
Territories,  ov  in  the  District  of  Columbia  ;  that  the  people  of  each  territory  shall  determine 
the  question  for  themselves,  and  be  admitted  into  the  Union  upon  a  footing  of  perfect 
equality  with  the  original  States,  without  discrimination,  on  account  of  the  allowance  or 
prohibition  of  Slavery." 

Does  Douglas  say  more  or  less  upon  the  subject?  Is  it  not  precisely  and  identically 
his  ground  ?     And  so  with  Gen.  Lane.     He  says  : 

""There  is  nothing  in  the  law,  gentlemen,  but  what  every  enlightened  American  heart 
should  approve.  The  idea  incorporated  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  is  the  true  American 
principle ;  for  the  bill  does  not  establish  or  prohibit  Slavery,  but  leaves  the  people  of  these 
territories  perfectly  free  to  regulate  their  own  local  affairs  in  their  own  way.  Is  there 
any  man  who  can  "^object  to  that  idea?  Is  there  any  American  citizen  who  can  oppose 
that  principle  ?  <* 

"The  question  of  Slavery  is  a  most  perplexing  one,  and  ought  not  to  be  agitated.  "We 
should  leave  it  with  the  states,  where  it  constitutionally  exists,  and  the  people  of  the  terri- 
tories to  prohibit,  or  to  establish,  as  to  them  may  seem  proper. 

"All  that  the  Democracy  ask  in  relation  to  this  matter  is,  that  the  people  of  the  terri- 
tory should  be  left  perfectly  free  to  settle  the  question  of  Slavery  for  themselves,  without 
the  interference  of  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  or  any  other  state." 

There,  then,  is  the  testimony  and  the  authority  of  not  only  Gen.  Cass  and  Mr.  Gush- 
ing, but  of  Breckinridge  and  Lane,  themselves,  the  candidates  of  the  party,  who  are  set 
up  in  opposition,  on  the  ground  that  they  cannot  support  Douglas  for  the  reason  that  he 
is  in  favor  of  Squatter  Sovereignty.     [Applause.] 

But  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  discard  all  the  authority  I  have  read  on  the  subject,  and 
come  to  the  plain,  naked  bill  itself;  and  let  us  see  what  it  is,  What  is  the  language  of 
the  bill?  It  declares,  in  so  many  words,  "it  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this 
act  not  to  legislate  Slavery  into  any  territory  or  state,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom ;"  when  ? 
Now.     At  this  moment.     At  the  time  of  the  passage  of  this  bill. 

"It  is  not  intended  to  legislate  Slavery  into  or  out  of  the  territories,  but  to  leave  the 
people  thereof  perfecthj  f7-ee  to  regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way." 

To  decide  for  themselves  when?  At  this  moment,  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the 
bill  ?  Is  a  word  said  about  admission  into  the  Union  when  it  forms  a  Constitution  and 
asks  for  admission  into  the  Union?  Not  a  word.  But  it  is  not  intended  now  to  legislate 
Slavery  into  or  out  of  the  territories,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  (now)  free  to  legislate 
in  their  own  way;  and  I  will  say,  as  Douglas  said  at  Norfolk  that  if  any  man  in  Congress 
did  not  understand  the  language  of  the  bill,  he  ought  to  confess  his  incapacity  to  repre- 
sent the  public,  and  resign  his  seat  and  come  home.  [Applause.]  I  will  add,  he  ought 
to  go  to  school  and  l^arn  the  English  language  again. 

They  were  not  deceived.  They  outwitted  themselves.  They  came  home,  and  attempted 
to  raise  their  emigrant  aid  societies  throughout  the  South.     Alabama  and  South  Carolina, 


SPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  JOHN  M.  BOTTS.  $ 

both  T  believe,  made  appropriations  out  of  the  public  treasury  to  all  who  would  g;o  into  the 
Territories  to  sustain  Sluvory,  and  in  thi'  town  of  pL*ter?bur<^.  my  own  city,  in  this  State, 
they  did  the  same  thing,  rni.sed  j)rivate  sub>crij)tions  to.})ay  the  expenses  (jf  tlie  emigrants, 
but  they  did  not  succeed  in  getting  enough  of  them  to  uccompli&h  their  purpusu,  and 
they  were  beaten  at  their  own  game. 

How  stands  it  now  in  regard  to  New  oVIexico  ?  It  has  authorized  the  introduction  of 
Slavt'rv.  Do  you  hear  anything  from  Jireckinridge  or  the  Democratic  party  against 
Squatter  Sovereignty  there?  Not  a  word.  That  is  all  right.  They  legishited  there  in 
accordance  with  their  views;  but  when  they  legislate  el»ewliere  in  opjjo.sition  to  their 
viows.  they  ojipose  it.  ^Vhy,  gentlemen,  there  is  but  one  thing  that  can  furnish  a  fit 
illustration  of  the  conduct  of  these  men.  and  that  is  the  case  of  a  desperate  gambler  who 
bets  his  all  upon  the  throwing  of  the  die,  or  the  turning  of  a  card,  or  upon  a  game  of  all- 
fours ;  the  parties  stand  six  to  six;  the  adversary  turns  uf)  .Jack,  and  the  party  who  pro- 
posed the  game  and  the  wager  grabs  the  stakes  and  attempts  to  run  otf.  but  is  caught  and 
held  by  the  coat-tail,  as  these  gentlemen  are.  It  is  a  miserable  subterfuge,  unworthy  of 
the  men  who  resort  to  it,  to  say  they  did  not  intend  to  give  the  power  of  legislation  to 
the  Territories.  And  when  I  raised  my  voice  against  it  in  1854,  during  the  pendency  of 
that  bill,  and  asked  you  to  pause  and  retlect  before  you  gave  that  measure  your  ajiproval, 
I  was  universally  denounced  and  condemned,  not  only  by  the  Democratic  party  and  press, 
but  by  my  own  party,  as  the  only  traitor  to  the  South. 

Now  we  are  all  traitors  and  Abolitionists  in  one  pen  together.  [Laughter  and  ap- 
plause.] 

Well,  you  will  ask  somebody  else  what  they  propose  the  dissolution  of  the  Union 
for,  and  he  will  give  you  another  reason.  One  says  he  is  not  willing  to  remain  in  the 
Union  except  on  the  condition  of  entire  equality  among  the  States.  Who  has  proposed 
inequality  among  the  States  ?  Do  not  the  small  States  of  Khode  Island  and  Delaware  ex- 
ercise all  their  constitutional  powers  in  the  Government  to  the  full  extent  that  the  great 
States  of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  can  do? 

But  they  say  unless  the  people  of  the  South  are  permitted  to  carry  their  slaves  into  the 
Territories  there  is  no  equality  among  the  States.  The  answer  to  which  is,  that  if  that 
constitutes  mequality,  then  equality  never  did  exist,  and  was  never  intended  to  exist,  for 
the  very  men  who  made  the  Constitution,  themselves  excluded  you  from  all  right  to  carry 
slaves  into  any  part  of  the  Territory  then  belonging  to  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  United  States,  which  they  did  by  the  ordinance  of  1787 — which  was  adojjted  just  before 
the  Constitution  was  ratified — and  which  was  immediately  on  the  assembling  of  th(^  first  Con- 
gress thus  recognized  by  a  preamble  to  a  law  passed  on  the  7th  of  August,  1789,  which 
preamble  is  in  the  following  words: 

"  Whereas,  in  order  that  the  ordinance  of  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  for 
the  government  of  the  territory  north-west  of  the  River  Ohio,  may  continue  to  have  full 
effect,  it  is  requsite  that  certain  provisions  should  be  made  so  as  to  adapt  the  same  to  the 
present  Constitution  of  the  United  States;  therefore  be  it  enacted,"  &c. 

Now,  all  this  was  not  only  acquiesced  in  and  submitted  to,  without  a  murmur  of 
complaint,  but  nobody  ever  dreamed  that  we  were  living  on  conditions  of  inKjuality  in 
the  Union.     This,  then,  is  not  the  real  treason  or  ground  of  complaint. 

I  am  fully  aware,  gentlemen,  that  the  tyranny  of  the  public  press,  and  I  may  say,  to 
some  extent,  of  public  opinion,  is  such  that  few  men  can  dare  to  express  the  opinions  they 
reallv  entertain  on  this  much  vexed  and  aimoying  question  of  Slavery.  I  can  dare  to  do 
it,  and  will  do  it — because  it  is  a  free  country.  I  am  a  free  man  and  have  no  favours  to 
ask  of  any  one.  [Great  applause.]  Let  any  man  express  a  sound  rational  and  national, 
sc'nsi})le  and  conservative  opinion  on  the  subject  of  Slavery,  and  he  is  instantly  stigmatized 
and  denounced  as  an  Abolitionist,  and  a  traitor  to  the  S(Uith,  unless,  indeed,  he  belongs  to 
the  Democratic  party  ;  then  he  is  at  liberty  to  say  and  think  what  he  chooses.  No  such 
ridiculous  and  contemptible  imputations  shall  deter  me  from  saying  what  I  think,  and 
thinking  what  I  please. 

I  am  free  to  say  that  the  events  of  the  last  Winter  and  Spring,  in  my  own  State,  have 
emothered,  if  they  have  not  extinguished,  whatever  aspirations  I  might  have  in- 
dulged, and  I  have  no  desire  that  my  name  shall  ever  again  be  coupled  with  any  political 
otfiee — no  man  is  more  indiflerent  to  political  honors  than  I  am — and  so  1  proceed. 
[Applause.] 

Well,  you  ask  another  portion  of  the  party  why  they  would  dissolve  the  Union,  and 
tliey  tell  you  it  is  owing  to  the  John  Brown  raid.  The  Cotton  States  propose  to  take  our 
grievances  off  our  hands,  thinking,  I  suppose,  we  cannot  take  care  of  ourselves,  or  have  not 
pufficiently  punished  the  aggressions,  or  that  it  did  not  cost  quite  money  enough  to  do  so, 
and  they  generously  propose  to  take  it  upon  themselves  to  redress  our  wrongs.  Thankful 
for  small  favors,  we  can  take  care  of  all  such,  without  the  aid  of  Messrs.  Yancey  and 
contpjiny.      [Laughter.] 

Well,  you  put  the  same  question  to  another,  and  ho  tells  you  it  is  because  the  Fugitive 


rma^i    ±jjli^  jj.u^n.  t}yjn.^\   j.jl.  £iw±±o. 

Slave  law  has  "been  nullified  in  fourteen  states.  Well,  if  tliat  is  so,  it  is  all  wrong  and 
ought  to  be  corrected.  But  it  happens  not  to  be  true.  There  are  but  three  States,  so  far 
as  I  am  informed,  that  have  passed  the  Personal  Liberty  bill — Michigan,  Vermont,  and 
Massachusetts.  Michigan  is  too  remote  for  a  slave  to  get  to,  and  as  far  as  she  is  concerned, 
it  is  practically  of  no  moment.  Theoretically,  it  is  all  wrong,  and  ought  to  be  corrected. 
Vermont  lies  on  the  borders  of  Canada,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  running  a  Slave  into 
the  Canadian  provinces ;  and  Massachusetts  has  modified  her  Personal  Liberty  bill,  but  I 
am  not  prepared  to  say  to  what  extent.  But  if  any  State  in  the  Union  has  nullified  or 
resisted  it,  I  say  it  is  all  wrong.  But  what  right  huve  these  extreme  Southern  States  to 
complain  and  threaten  to  break  up  the  Government  on  that  account?  First,  they  lose 
no  slaves  ;  it  is  from  the  border  States  the  slaves  run  ofl".  We  are  the  sufferers,  not  they ; 
and  if  we  are  willing  to  live  in  the  Union,  we  beg  them  not  to  go  out  on  our  account ;  we 
will  try  and  take  care  of  ourselves.  Secondly,  if  those  States  have  nullified  the  law,  who 
set  the  example  ?  Was  it  not  set  by  the  Cotton  States,  who  have  insisted  on  the  right  of 
each  State  to  judge  for  itself.  Thirdly,  because  the  responsibility  rests  at  last  not  upon 
those  States  that  have  nullified  the  law,  but  on  the  Democratic  President  of  the  United 
States.  Who  is  responsible  for  the  resistance  that  may  be  made  to  the  law,  or  for  any 
nullification  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  or  any  other  law,  whether  in  Massachusetts  or  in  South 
Carolina  ?  It  is  the  man  who  has  laid  his  hand  upon  the  sacred  book  and  sworn  to  see 
the  laws  faithfully  executed.  It  is  the  President  of  the  United  States — it  is  James 
Buchanan  who  is  responsible  for  it — and  if  you  had  a  man  there  who  knew  his  duty,  and 
possessed  the  courage  to  perform  it.  you  would  hear  nothing  of  nullification  in  any  State, 
whether  in  Massachusetts  or  South  Carolina.  They  would  all  be  made  to  execute  the 
law,  cost  what  it  might — even  if  it  cost  every  dollar  in  the  Treasury,  and  the  life  of  every 
man  in  the  Arm}^  and  Navy  of  the  United  States — it  is  his  business  to  see  the  laws  faith- 
fully executed  in  every  State  ;  and  when  Mr.  Fillmore  was  there  he  did  execute  the  law. 
[Applause.]  He  sent  Federal  troops  to  Boston  to  execute  the  law,  as  it  was  his  duty 
to  do. 

Now  let  me  say  a  word  about  this  Fugitive  Slave  law,  and  explain  what  are  the 
objections  made  to  its  execution  in  the  North.  Two  features  of  it  are  much  complained 
of.  First  of  all,  they  complain  of  a  feature  of  that  bill  which  authorizes  the  Marshal  of 
the  District  to  call  on  any  person  in  the  hearing  of  his  voice  to  aid  him  in  capturing  a 
fugitive  slave.  They  say,  and,  I  think,  with  propriety,  that  inasmuch  as  you  are  not  re- 
quired to  do  it  here,  you  have  no  right  to  require  them  to  do  it  there.  If  a  man's  slave 
runs  away,  you  have  no  right  to  cafl  upon  me  to  aid  in  the  catching  of  the  slave ;  but  if 
the  Marshal  has  taken  possession  of  the  slave,  and  there  is  an  attempt  to  rescue  the  slave, 
then  he  has  the  right  to  call  on  all  men  to  vindicate  the  law.  The  one,  you  perceive,  is 
the  vindication  of  a  personal  right;  the  other  is  the  vindication  of  a  public  law.  Now, 
that  feature  of  the  bill  which  gives  offence  to  the  North,  was  put  there  by  Mr.  Mason, 
who  was  so  much  opposed  to  the  passage  of  the  compromise  measures  then  pending,  that 
he  proposed  that  feature  as  an  amendment  to  the  bill — with  the  hope  it  would  occasion  its 
defeat  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  thereby  defeat  the  whole  batch  of  compromise 
measures  fo  which  he  was  opposed.     But  it  passed  and  became  a  law  with  all  the  rest. 

So  that  you  are  indebted  to  Mr  Mason  for  whatever  resistance  has  been  made  to  its 
execution.  My  own  impression  is,  that  that  feature  of  the  bill  might  be  modified  without 
destroj-inc:  the  efficiency  of  the  bill,  and  it  ought  to  be  done,  and  the  South  ought  to  pro- 
pose it.  There  is  another  feature  in  the  bill  to  which  they  object,  in-which,  I  think,  they 
are  v/rong.  They  say  the  trial  of  the  right  of  the  master  to  his  slave  ought  to  be  where 
the  slave  is  arrested.  I  think  not.  First,  because  the  slave  is  sure  of  a  fair  trial  in  the 
State  from  which  he  makes  his  escape.  No  man  ever  yet  heard  of  a  free  man  being  re- 
duced to  slavery  against  the  law  in  a  Slave  state.  Public  feeling  inclines  the  other  way, 
and  if  you  were  to  change  the  venue,  I  am  sure  that  such  is  the  prejudice  of  the  public 
mind  there  that  justice  would  rarely  be  done,  and  it  would  cost  a  man  more  than  his 
slave  would  be  worth  to  recover  him.  In  addition  to  this,  the  evidence  of  the  titte  is 
where  the  slave  makes  his  escape  from. 

I  have  thus  shown  you  the  difficulties  about  the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  I  think  I  have 
showji  you  it  is  not  on  account  of  the  doctrine  of  Squatter  Sovereignty,  nor  of  the  in- 
equality of  the  States,  nor  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law,  that  the  Breckenridge  Demf)cracy 
propose  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  in  a  certain  contingency.  Well,  another  will  say  it  is 
because  you  will  not  give  us  a  Territorial  bill  for  the  protection  of  Slavery.  I  take  issue 
again,  and  I  say  that  is  not  the  reason.  Why  is  that  not  the  reason  ?  First,  because 
when  Mr.  Brown  of  Mississippi,  at  the  last  session  of  Congress,  proposed  an  amendment 
to  a  bill,  giving  a  Territorial  Code,  it  received  but  three  votes  in  the  Senate.  They  did 
not  want  it.  It  did  not  suit  their  convenience  to  have  it.  It  would  have  removed  one 
of  the  weapons  with  which  they  proposed  to  fire  the  Southern  heart  and  precipitate  the 
Cotton  States  into  a  revolution.  They  would  not  vote  for  it.  There  was  no  necessity  for 
it,  and  more  than  that  they  were  not  entitled  to  it. 


SPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  JOHX  M.  BOTTS.  7 

But  that  constitutes  no  reason  for  their  present  position  of  hostility  to  the  Government. 
I  say  they  do  not  want  it.  First,  because  there  is  no  Territory  to  wliich  they  could  send 
their  slaves;  and,  secondly,  if  all  the  Torrit<»ries  were  at  their  control,  they  have  no 
negroes  to  send.  The  States  which  propose  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  because  they  cannot 
send  their  slaves  into  Territories  that  do  not  exist,  are  now  clamoring  for  a  revival  of  the 
slave-trade  in  order  to  supply  that  deficiency.  Thirdly,  if  they  had  the  territory,  and  the 
neirroes  to  send,  they  have  not  the  white  men  to  send  with  them.  Have  we  in  the  South 
any  population  to  spare  ?  If  we  dispose  of  any  portion  of  our  white  population  by  send- 
ing them  into  the  Territories,  where  we  have  no  negroes,  as  a  matter  of  course  we  de- 
preciate the  value  of  our  lands,  lessen  our  importance  in  the  national  c(juncils,  and  become 
reduced  to  the  political  conditions  of  one  of  the  smallest  States  in  the  Union.  "What  do 
vou  want  to  dissolve  the  Union  for?  Do  they  want  protection  to  their  slave  property? 
i'irst,  who  disturbs  them  in  the  possession  of  their  slaves  ?  Secondly,  what  right  have 
they  to  ask  for  protection  to  their  slaves  ?  Have  not  the  Cotton  States  always  resisted 
this  principle  of  protection,  and  threatened  to  dissolve  the  Union  if  the  principle  of  pro- 
tection should  be  recognized  by  Congress;  and  when  the  AVhig  party  claimed  protection 
for  the  poor  man's  labor,  whicii  constituted  the  projx-rty  and  wealth  of  the  country,  they 
were  always  met  by  threats  to  dissolve  the  Union,  to  destroy  the  Government,  if  such 
protection  was  afibrded. 

Now  they  come  forward  and  say,  if  you  do  not  protect  the  rich  man's  negro,  they  will 
dissolve  the  Union  again.  Well,  it  is  not  on  the  principle  of  protection,  then,  that  they 
mean  to  dissolve  the  Union. 

AVhat  is  it?  Now,  there  is  a  veil  that  to  the  vision  of  some  obscures  the  scene  behind, 
which  to  me  is  as  clear  as  the  gas-light  that  shines  before  me  ;  and  here  lies  all  the  mystery. 
All  admit,  or  decline  to  deny^  the  value  and  blessings  of  our  Government;  all  are  ready 
to  concede  that  it  is  the  only  Government  on  earth  where  civil,  religious,  and  political 
freedom  can  be  indulged  and  enjoyed.  All  admit  it  is  the  fairest  fabric  of  Government 
ever  erected  by  human  hands,  and  yet  it  is  proposed  to  destroy  it.  Well,  there  is  some 
secret  reason  tor  all  this,  not  yet  fully  and  openly  disclosed.  Why  is  it  that  they  have 
nominated  John  C.  Breckinridge  against  Stephen  A.  Douglas  ?  From  the  apprehension — 
encouraged  by  their  last  success — from  the  apprehension  that  Douglas  may  be  elected. 
Why  is  i4  that  they  put  Breckinridge  in  opposition  to  the  national  nominee  of  the  party  ? 
Why,  for  no  other  reason  than  to  make  the  election  of  Lincoln  sure,  and  thus  get  up 
agitation  xnd  excitement  at  the  South.  It  is,  gentlemen,  for  the  purpose  of  stirring  up 
commotion,  i evolution,  and  disunion,  that  they  may  revive  the  African  slave-trade — the 
African  slave-trade  without  the  Union,  rather  than  the  Union  without  the  African  slave- 
trade,  and  they  are  impelled  to  it  by  the  most  debased  of  all  considerations.  They  are 
impelled  and  are  pre])ared  not  only  to  destroy  the  Government,  but  to  sell  their  liberty, 
and  the  hopes  of  mankind,  for  gold,  for  the  purpose  of  introducing  little  negroes  from  the 
coast  of  Africa,  into  their  cotton  fields,  in  order  that  they  may  make  cotton  sell  at  12  cents 
a  pound,  to  put  into  their  breeches  pockets.  They  do  not  ask  us  to  unite  with  them,  but 
we,  the  border  States,  are  to  act  in  the  capacity  of  breakwater  between  them  and  the 
North — we  are  to  do  the  lighting  while  they  make  the  cotton.  [Applause.]  We  are  to 
do  the  fighting ;  they  are  to  make  the  money.  According  to  the  census  of  1850,  there 
were  350,000  slaveholders  in  the  United  States.  I  think  the  number  has  diminished,  as 
will  appear  by  the  census  of  ISOO,  for  the  reason  that  negroes  brini;  such  high  prices,  poor 
men  have  not  been  able  to  keep  them,  and  they  have  been  sold  to  the  rich  planters  ot^  the 
South,  and  they  are  held  now  in  larger  quantities  by  the  rich  planters  and  smaller  quan- 
tities by  the  poor.  So  that  I  think  by  the  census  of  18(50  it  will  be  found  that  their  number 
has  diminished — I  do  not  mean  the  number  of  slaves  has  diminished,  but  slaveholders; 
there  are  now  about  4,000,000  of  them,  but  I  think  the  number  of  slave  owners  has 
diminished — and  I  think  it  is  a  fair  computation  to  say  that  more  than  four-fifths  of  the 
slaveholders  in  the  United  States  are  o|)posed  to  the  revival  of  the  trade,  and  the  other 
handful  propo.se  to  engage  in  a  trade  that  has  been  pronounced  to  be  piracy  not  only  by 
our  laws  but  by  the  whole  civilized  world;  and  yet  they  propose  to  set  themselves  up  in 
defiance  of  the  civilization  of  the  world,  and  carry  on  this  trade,  and  ask  that  we  shall 
protect  them  in  it.  It  would  be  no  dithcult  matter  to  show  by  figures  taken  from  public 
document  authorized  by  Congress  and  issued  from  the  different  Di'partinents  of  tlie  Gt)Vern- 
ment,  that  more  money  has  been  lost  by  the  failure  to  protect  the  labor  and  interests  of 
the  non-slaveholders  and  of  the  poorer  class  of  slaveholders  during  the  last  fourteen  years, 
than  would  p:iy  for  every  negro  in  the  United  States  twice  over,  estimating  the  negroes 
at  4,000,000,  and  valuing  them  at  the  price  which  our  Constitution  fixes  upon  them,  $800 
a  head,  making  $1,200,000,000.  Now  go  back  to  the  taritf  of  1842,  that  did  protect  the 
labor  of  the  entire  country,  slaveholders  and  non-slaveholders,  North  and  South,  and 
ascertain  what  was  the  balance  of  trade,  annually  increasing,  in  fjivor  of  the  United 
States,  and  then  take  the  tarifl'of  184t»,  and  ascertain  what  had  been  the  annual  balance 
of  trade  against  the  United  States,  and  it  will  give  you  considerably  more  than  $100,000,- 


^^^^^  Sl-JiEUH  OJ^'  THE  MO^.  JOHN  M.  BOTTS. 

000  per  annum  for  the  last  fourteen  years.  And  yet  who  has  proposed  to  dissolve  the 
Union  on  that  account?  We  have  submitted,  because  we  submit  to  the  Constitution  and 
the  laws  of  our  country,  and  to  the  legal  control  of  a  majority,  as  they  will  be  compelled 
to  do,  now  that  that  majority  is  against  them. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  have  not  desired  to  make  a  charge  against  the  leaders  of  the  Breck- 
inridge party  on  the  subject  of  disunion  ;  and  if  I  had  made  a  speech  before  you  previous 
to  the  meeting  of  the  Charlottesville  Convention,  I  should  have  acquitted  the  entire  party 
of  any  such  purpose  ;  and  if  I  do  not  do  it  now,  it  is  only  because  they  have  forced  upon 
me  the  necessity  of  holding  them  responsible  for  it.  In  that  Charlottesville  Convention, 
a  gentleman  who  occupies  quite  a  prominent  position,  and  is  a  most  respectable,  amiable, 
and  intelligent  gentleman  in  all  the  relations  of  private  life,  one  whom  I  have  known  a 
long  time,  and  entertain  the  highest  respect  for,  and  therefore,  on  account  of  his  posi- 
tion as  a  man  of  wealth  and  influence,  his  opinions  are  rendered  the  more  important  and 
the  more  obnoxious.  Mr.  Willoughby  Newton,  who  had  the  modesty  to  describe  himself 
to  the  Convention  as  ^^  a  retired  philosopher,''  [laughter],  made  a  speech  which  contained,  I 
think,  as  much  treasonable  matter  for  the  space  it  contained  as  any  other  gentleman  could 
very  well  infuse  into  a  speech  of  that  length.     He  says: 

"  We  are  here  to  make  a  stand  for  the  South,  or  we  are  here  for  nothing.     If  we  are  to 
be  appalled  by  the  shadow  of  disunion,  let  us  go  for  Douglas ;  or  if  we  are  for  the  spoils 
of  victory  let  us  go  for  Bell.     A  revolution  has  already  taken  place  and  we  are  now 
bowing  under  a  government  which  no  free  people  would  ever  have  assented  to.     Gentle- 
men talk  of  awaiting  an  overt  act.     Have  we  not  had  overt  acts  ?     Have  not  fifteen  States 
nullified  by  law  the  Fugitive  Slave  act?      Was  not  the  fatal  Compromise  of  1850  an  overt 
act?     What  acts  shall  we  wait  for?     He  called  upon  them  to  take  their  stand  now  as 
patriots.     Let  us  have  no  more  compromises,  but  trust  to  the  God  of  Battle.     Our  fathers 
did  not  count  the  cost.     They  fought  on  a  point  of  honor.     They  were  three  millions — 
we  are  nine.     But  he  believed  that  the  idea  of  civil  war,  if  the  Union  were  dissolved,  was 
a  chimera.     There  might  be  border  forays,  but  a  dozen  intrepid  Virginians  would  quell 
them.     But  if  war  should  come  in  so  just  a  cause,  who  would  shrink  from  it?     Our  fore- 
fathers, with  a  third  of  our  population,  &c.,  not  a  tenth  of  our  territory,  went  to  war  on 
a  preamble,  because  it  involved  a  point  of  honor.     Had  we  not  courage  enough  to  follow 
their  example  ?     What  was  there  so  hard  to  give  up  in  our  present  government  ?     The 
Constitution  was  already  repealed,  effete  and  incapable  of  maintaining  our  rights.     The 
popular  mind  should  be  familiarized  with  the  thought  of  a  separation.     It  should   be 
directed  to  the  glorious  position  that  Virginia  would  occupy  if  the  Union  were  destroyed. 
The  speaker  then  drew  a  picture  of  the  results  that  would  flow,  in  the  development  of  our 
material  resources — commerce,  manufactures,  and  agriculture.     Norfolk  would  become 
the  great  emporium  of  a  Southern  empire,  and  the  stream  of  wealth  that  now  flows  to  the 
North  from  the  rich  State  of  the  South  would  all  pour  through  Virginia,  or  be  arrested  at 
home.     Virginia  would  become  the  most  powerful  State  in  tiie  world.     In  twelve  months 
her  whole  fortunes  would  be  revolutionized.     These  were  not  the  inconsiderate  conclu- 
sions of  rashness  or  resentment,  but  the  calm  deductions  of  a  retired  political  philosopher. 
We  could  not  rely  upon  those  we  considered  our  friends  at  the  North  ;   we  must  reW  on 
ourselves.     Mr.  Newton  was  about  to  conclude,  but  the  Convention  urging  him  to  pro- 
ceed, he  said  he  was  happy  to  find  that  his  plain  doctrines  were  not  distasteful  to  his  en- 
lightened audience.     He  had  retired  from  public  life  from  self-respect,  and  had  been  de- 
Voting  himself  since  exclusively  to  the  interests  of  his  State  and  section,  and  the  cultiva- 
tion of  letters  and  philosophy." 

He  goes  back  "to  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  to  show  that  that  was  an  overt  act 
justifying  a  dissolution  of  the  Union.  Those  Compromise  acts  that  were  the  work  of  the 
first  men  of  all  parties  in  the  nation,  with  Henry  Clay  at  the  head  and  Gen.  Cass  giving 
his  aid — the  two  great  leaders  of  the  two  great  parties  of  the  day  ;  those  measures  which 
the  Democratic  party  took  from  us  and  claimed  as  their  own.  To  be  sure  they  made  re- 
sistance in  the  beginning,  and  did  call  for  a  Southern  Convention  in  Nashville,  for  the 
purpose  of  dissolving  the  Union  then,  rather  than  submit  to  the  Compromise  measures ; 
but  so  overwhelmingly  popular  did  they  become,  that  those  gentlemen  were  driven  from 
their  position,  and  advocated  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  as  their  own.  They  put 
Pierce  on  the  platform,  and  swore  he  was  a  better  Compromise  man  than  Scott,  who  aided 
in  the  passage  of  these  measures,  as  far  as  any  one  vote  in  Congress  could  do,  and  this  was 
conclusively  established  even  by  those  who  were  opposed  to  him.  Yet  they  swore  that 
Pierce  was  more  to  be  relied  upon  for  his  fidelity  to  those  Compromise  measures  than 
Winfield  Scott.  To  be  sure,  we  swore  hard  on  the  other  side,  but  they  outswore  us  so  far, 
that  they  beat  Scott  so  badly  that  he  has  hardly  shown  his  face  in  public  since ;  and  Mr. 
Willoughby  Newton  voted  for  Pierce  on  that  platform. 

Letters  and  Philosophy  !  Here  was  a  gentleman  preaching  treason  and  disunion,  the 
philosojihy  of  Benedict  Arnold,  and  of  Aaron  Burr,  and  before  whom?  A  mass  of  igno- 
rant men,  whose  passions  were  to  be  excited  and  led  away  ?     No !     He  was  addressing 


SPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  JOHN  M.  BOTTS.  9 

himself  to  the  elite,  the  select,  the  chosen  representatives  of  the  Breckinridge  Democracy 
of  this  State  ;  and  when  lie  pr(»posed  to  retire  from  the  stand,  they  cheered  him  to  go  on — 
"Go  on  !"  they  were  delighted  with  such  philosophy  as  he  preached,  and  he  did  go  on, 
congratulating  himself  and  them  that  his  "phiin  doctrine"  was  not  distasteful  to  them. 
Oh  !  wlnit  a  pity  it  is  for  the  memory  of  Aaron  Burr,  tliat  he  lived  fifty  years  too  soon  I 
He  would  have  had  no  competitor  in  the  Baltimore  or  Kichmond  Conventions  for  the 
nomination  by  this  party  for  the  Presidency.  [Applause.]  For  I  am  told  that  when  a 
gentleman  named  Baldwin,  from  the  State  of  New  York,  attempted  to  say  something  in 
the  Kichmond  Convention  favorable  to  the  Union,  he  was  called  to  order,  and  not  allowed 
to  proceed  with  his  remarks.  What  did  liurr  design  against  his  country  beyond  that  of 
dismembering  the  Union  and  establishing  a  Southern  Confederacy  ?  What  more  and 
what  less  do  these  Democrats  contemplate  or  threaten  ?  And  in  what  are  they  better 
than  he,  and  why  are  they  patriots  and  he  a  traitor,  whom  every  child  is  taught  in 
infancy  to  abhor  ?  But  that  is  not  all.  We  have  the  opinions  of  other  gentlemen  on 
the  subject. 

I  hardly  need  tell  you  what  is  Mr.  Yancey's  position,  or  read  his  Slaughter  letter  that 
has  been  published  in  every  newspaper — no,  not  in  all.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  has 
been  in  every  newspaper,  for  I  do  not  believe  that  the  Breckinridge  papers  will  publish 
it.     [Applause.]     But  I  will  read  to  you  what  he  says: 

"No  national  party  can  save  us,  no  sectional  party  can  ever  do  it.     But  if  we  could  do 
as  our  fathers  did — organize  Committees  of  Safety  all  over  the  Cotton  States  (and  it  is 
only  in  them  that  we  can  hope  for  any  effective  movement),  we  shall  fire  the  Southern 
heart,  instruct  the  Southern  mind,  give  courage  to  each  other,  and  at  the  proper  moment, 
by  one  organized,  concerted  action,  we  can  i)recipitate  the  Cotton  States  into  a  revolution." 
January  11,  1860,  before  the  Alabama  Democratic  Convention,  he  said: 
"  But  in  the  Presidential  contest  a  Black  Republican  may  be  elected.     If  tb's  dire  event   should 
happen,  in  my  opinion  the  only  hope  for  the  South  is  in  a  withdrawal  from  the   Union   before   he 
sball  be  inaugurated." 
But  he  .says  again  : 

"  Upon  that  question  I  bide  my  time,  and  shall  be  ready  with  the  readiest,  believing  at  the  same 
time  that  sufficient  cause  exists  for  a  resort  to  that  expedient,  even  now  if  it  were  expedient." 
Upon  his  present  course,  as  taken  during  his  tour  through  the  Northern  States,  the  Edjejield  (S. 

C.)  Advertiser  says  :  

"But  why  should  Mr.  Yancey  endeavor  to  fight  against  the  general  conviction  that  he  is  a  Dis- 
unionist  ?  It  is  the  very  thing  that  has  given  bim  strength  in  the  present  hour  of  strife.  It  is  cer- 
tainly the  cause  why  many  South  Carolinians  have  thrown  up  their  bats  for  him.  Take  away  his 
Disunion  strength,  and  Mr.  Yancey,  it  seems  to  us,  will  be  another  Samson,  shorn  of  his  strength.  * 
;?**«•*  "At  all  events,  we  venture  the  assertion  that  ninety-nine  hundredths  of  the 
Disunionists  'per  ae'  at  the  South  are  perfectly  satisfied  with  Mr.  Yancey's  extremeisni ;  is  it  not 
true  that  they  believe  him  to  be  the  ruling  .spirit  of  approaching  dissolution  ?  and  if  this  estimate 
of  him  be  correct,  is  it  not  much  better  and  much  wiser  that  he  should  drop  a  mere  warfare  of  policy 
and  come  out  boldly  for  Disunion  in  certain  contingencies?" 

Well,  now,  it  was  not  necessary  to  undertake  to  show  you  that  Mr.  Yancey  is  a  disunionist.  But 
we  have  something  more  of  it  in  our  own  State.  Your  late  Governor,  Mr.  Wise,  has  made  a  speech 
recently,  which  I  have  not  read,  but  I  am  told  he  takes  the  ground  that  the  election  of  Lincoln 
would  be  an  act  of  war ;  and  on  my  way  here  this  morning  I  saw  an  article  taken  from  The  Rich- 
mond Enquirer,  in  which  that  paper  says  : 

"  Virginia  can  no  more  prevent  the  dissolution  of  this  Union  after  Lincoln's  election,  than  she 
can  prevent  that  election.  She  will  be  powerless  to  prevent  civil  war,  with  all  its  attendant  horrors. 
Any  one  of  the  Southern  States  can,  and  some  of  them  will  involve  the  whole  country,  North  as  well 
as  South,  in  the  internecine  strife  of  a  bloody  and  desolating  civil  war.  Virjinia  tcill,  by  a  majority 
of  her  people,  decide  upon  resistance,  whWe  fi  large  minority  may  desire  to  postpone  resistance  for 
the  'overt  act;'  but  hitched  as  she  is  to  the  Southern  States,  she  will  be  dragged  into  a  common 
destiny  with  them,  no  matter  what  may  bo  the  desire  of  the  people.  We  believe  that  a  large  ma- 
jority of  the  people  of  Virginia,  if  the  opportunity  of  a  State  Convention  was  allowed  them,  would 
vote  for  immediate  resistance  and  for  a  common  destiny  with  the  Southern  States  ;  and  with  this 
belief  we  would  advise  the  Slave  States  not  to  hesitate  to  strike  an  early  blow  from  fear  that  Vir- 
ginia may  hesitate  in  her  duty  to  the  South." 

Now,  gentlemen,  I'will  not  trust  myself  to  characterize  that  article.  I  confess  I  have  not  lan- 
guage to  express  my  utter  abhorrence  and  indignation  at  reading  such  an  article  from  the  leading 
organ  of  the  Breckinridge  party  in  this  State.  The  English  vocabulary  would  not  more  than  fur- 
nish me  with  terms  to  say  what  I  think  of  it.  One  thing  I  have  to  say,  however,  is  this,  and  I  say 
it  with  all  becoming  respect  for  Mr.  Buchanan,  between  whom  and  myself  have  always  existed 
feelings  of  kindness  and  respect,  and  I  still  feel  for  him  a  warm  personal  regard  ;  but  of  his  political 
course  I  wish  I  could  say  less  than  I  am  obliged  to  gay ;  but  if  be  knew  his  duty,  and  had  the  firm- 
ness to  execute  it,  it  is  my  solemn  conviction  he  would  not  only  have  the  authors  of  that  article, 
but  every  man  who  preaches  disunion  and  endeavors  to  stir  up  rebellion  in  the  Government,  instan- 
taneously arrested;  and  if  I  were  President  of  the  United  States,  so  help  me  God,  I  would  do  it 
before  the  week  ran  out.  [Great  applause.]  I  would  have  them  arrested  for  conspiracy  to  levy  war 
against  the  United  Stat«8 — not  for  war  or  treason,  but  for  high  misdemeanor,  for  conspiracy  to  levy 
war  against  the  Uniteil  States  ;  and  I  would  test  the  strength  of  the  law  to  ascertain  whether  the 
frauera  of  the  Cuustitutiou  had  given  it  the  power  to  protect  itself. 


In  the  trial  of  Asiron  Burr,  who,  by  the  by,  was  acquitted  of  a  charge  of  treason  on  a  technicality 
of  law  raised  by  my  father,  who  was  one  of  his  counsel,  on  the  question  of  what  constituted  an  overt 
act,  he  was  acquitted  of  a  charge  of  treason,  because  they  could  not  prove  the  overt  act;  and  then 
he  was  arraigned  for  misdemeanor — for  conspiracy  to  levy  war  against  the  United  States,  and  the 
country  was  ransacked  during  the  administration  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  (who  knew  his  duty  and  had  the 
nerve  to  perform  it,)  that  they  might  establish  upon  him,  by  hia  correspondence,  the  charge  of  mis- 
demeanor, and  if  there  could  have  been  found  a  tithe  of  what  these  gentlemen  furnish  against 
themselves,  he  would  not  have  gone  unpunished.  In  that  trial,  Chief  Jvistice  Marshall,  one  of  the 
purest  men  and  one  of  the  profoundest  expounders  of  law  that  ever  adorned  the  Bench  of  this  or 
any  other  country,  says  ; 

'•Judge  Chase  has  been  particularly  clear  and  explicit  in  an  opinion  which  he  appears  to  have 
prepared  on  great  consideration  ;  he  says  the  quota  of  opinion,  that  if  a  body  of  people  conspire 
and  meditate  an  insurrection  to  resist  or  oppose  the  execution  of  a  statute  of  the  United  States, 
they  are  guilty  of  a  high  misdemeanor.  But  if  they  proceed  to  carry  that  intention  into  execution, 
they  are  guilty  of  the  treason  of  levying  war,  and  the  quantnm  of  force  employed  neither  increases 
nor  diminishes  the  crime." 

Again,  Judge  Marshall  says: 

*' Any  combination  to  subvert  by  force  the  Government  of  the  United  States;  violently  to  dis- 
member the  Union  ;  to  compel  a  change  in  the  Administration;  to  coerce  the  repeal  or  adoption  of 
a  general  law,  is  a  conspiracy  to  levy  war ;  and  if  conspiracy  be  carried  into  effect  by  the  actual  em- 
ployment of  force,  by  the  embodying  and  assembling  of  men,  for  the  purpose  of  executing  the 
treasonable  design  which  was  previously  conceived,  it  amounts  to  a  levying  of  war." 

Well,  now,  the  question  is.  Are  these  gentlemen  engaged  in  any  attempt  to  subvert  the  Govern- 
ment, to  change  the  Arainistration,  to  coerce  an  election,  or  to  defeat  an  election  ;  and  if  they  are 
are  they  not,  under  that  decision,  thus  pronounced  guilty  of  high  misdemeanor;  and,  if  so,  why  is 
it  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  sits  with  his  arms  folded  without  any  attempt  to  arrest 
it?  Well,  he  happens  to  belong  to  the  same  political  party;  he  has,  in  fact,  descended  from  hia 
high  estate  and  come  down  into  the  political  arena.  He  either  does  not  know,  or  has  not  the  manli- 
ness to  perform,  his  duty  to  the  country. 

It  might  be  a  difficult  matter  to  convict  sttch  men  as  Mr.  Yancey,  and  a  partial  jury  might  acquit 
him,  but  the  moment  he  opened  his  mouth  again  on  the  subject,  I  would  have  him  arrested  again  : 
and  if  he  again  opened  upon  the  subject,  after  having  been  again  acquitted,  I  would  arrest  him 
again.  [Applause.]  And  so  with  all  the  rest  of  them  in  this  State  as  well  as  in  Alabama  and  South 
Carolina.  Suppose  a  body  of  men  were  marching  up  and  down  the  streets  of  our  principal  cities 
with  drum  and  fife,  to  recruit  or  enlist  soldiers,  for  the  purpose  of  taking  possession  of  or  subverting 
the  Government,  or  raising  the  standard  of  rebellion  against  the  United  States  in  the  event  of  a 
contingency'  which  was  almost  sure  to  happen,  would  there  be  any  hesitation  as  to  the  propriety  of 
their  arrest?  and  if  public  speaking  and  writing  in  the  newspapers  are  deemed  more  efficient  means 
for  the  accomplishment  of  the  same  objects,  why  should  not  the  same  steps  be  taken  towards  them  ? 

Now,  gentlemen,  we  come  to  a  very  important  question,  and  that  ia,  Is  this  Union  going  to  be 
dissolved  ?  Well,  I  do  not  think  it  is.  [Applause.]  I  think  I  can  see  as  clearly  as  I  can  see  any- 
thing, how  this  matter  is  going  to  terminate.  I  speak  in  the  event  of  Lincoln's  election.  I  do  nofc 
say  iie  will  be  elected.  Every  intelligent  man  will  admit  that  there  is  a  prospect  for  his  election. 
I  will  neither  discourage  my  friends  by  saying  he  will  be  elected,  nor  will  I  mislead  the  public 
luind  by  saying  he  will  not  be  elected.  I  treat  it  only  as  a  possible  contingency  ;  as  an  event  that 
may  be  upon  us  in  the  course  of  the  next  three  weeks.  Is  his  election  to  bring  about  a  dissolution 
of  the  Union  ?  I  do  not  think  it  will.  If  he  is  elected,  I  have  no  doubt  the  fiery  Governors  of  the 
Cotton  States  will  send  flaming  messages  on  the  subject  to  their  Legislatures.  But  the  Legislatures 
can  do  nothing.  It  is  only  the  people  in  convention  assembled  that  can  take  any  active  hostile 
measures.  The  members  of  the  Legislatures  will  make  inflammatory  speeches,  and  the  subject  will 
finally  be  referred  to  a  committee.  The  committee  will  act  upon  it  at  their  leisure,  and  toward  the 
close  of  the  session,  they  will  report  that  inasmuch  as  Virginia  and  the  other  Southern  border  States 
are  not  prepared  to  act  upon  the  subject,  it  is  premature  for  them  to  move,  and  they  will  postpone 
the  evil  day  until  the  border  States  are  prepared  to  go  with  them.     [Great  applause.] 

I  say,  in  the  first  place,  the  Union  is  not  going  to  be  dissolved,  for  the  reason  that  they  have  no 
right  to  dissolve  the  Union  for  any  such  cause.  It  is  no  more  cause  for  a  dissolution  of  the  Union 
that  Lincoln  should  be  elected,  if  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  acting  under  the 
forms  prescribed  in  the  Constitution,  and  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  country,  slioald  choose 
to  elect  him,  than  it  would  have  been  in  the  year  1800,  for  the  Federal  party  to  have  dissolved  the 
Union  on  account  of  the  election  of  Mr.  Jefferson.  The  Federalists  were  as  hostile  to  the  Demo- 
cratic party  then,  as  the  Democratic  party  are  to  the  Republican  party  at  the  present  day,  and  if  it 
was  not  cause  for  dissolution  then,  it  is  not  cause  now;  and  if  it  were  good  cause  then,  it  is  good 
cause  now.  If  it  were  good  cause,  we  all  should  be  revolutionists;  I  should  have  been  a  revolu- 
tionist all  my  life,  for  I  have  never  seen  the  man  of  my  choice  elected  President.  But  I  yield  to 
the  Constitution  and  the  laws  of  my  country,  and  to  the  expressed  will  of  the  majority  of  the  people 
of  the  United  States. 

When  did  this  right  of  revolution,  this  right  to  secede  from  the  Union — when  did  it  begin  ?  If 
it  exists  now,  did  it  not  exist  from  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution? 

But  I  come  to  that  subject  presently. 

Is  it  necessary  that  I  should  introduce  authority  here  to  show  that  there  is  no  right  to  dissolve 
the  Government  for  any  such  cause  ?  I  have  the  authority  here.  But,  to  be  sure,  it  is  of  no  great 
weight.  It  is  only  that  of  a  number  of  insignificant  characters,  whose  opinions  never  did  exert  any 
ipfluence  over  the  public  mind,  especially  of  late  years,  since  we  have  been  blessed  with  the  present 


SPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  JOHN  M.  BOTTS.  11 

generation  of  politicians  and  statesmen.  We  have  a  new  set  of  unfledged  politicians,  many  of  them 
just  from  school,  who  speak  flippantly  of  the  institutions  founded  by  our  fathers,  who  give  laws  to 
the  country  as  leaders  and  organs  of  parties,  and  they  tell  us  they  have  the  right  to  secede  from  the 
Union. 

And  what  of  it,  if  I  bring  before  you  the  opinions  of  such  men  as  George  Washington,  Thomas 
Jefferson,  James  Madison,  Andrew  Jackson,  and  Bpeneer  Hoaue,  to  ofi"set  the  opinions  of  these 
mushroon  politicians?  And  yet  Mr.  Madison  said  thoy  had  no  such  power;  for  when  New  York 
proposed  to  come  into  the  Confederacy  upon  the  condition  that  she  should  be  permitted  to  ofi'er  cer- 
tain amendments  to  the  Constitution,  and  Mr.  Hamilton  wrote  to  Mr.  Madison  to  know  if  New 
York  could  come  into  the  Union  upon  such  conditions,  what  does  Mr.  Madison  say: 

"  .My  opinion  is,  that  a  reservation  of  a  right  to  withdraw,  if  amendments  be  not  decided  on  under 
the  form  of  the  Constitution  within  a  certain  time,  is  a  conditional  ratification  ;  that  it  does  not 
make  New  York  a  member  of  the  new  Union,  and,  consequently,  that  she  could  not  be  received  on 
that  plan.  Compacts  must  be  reciprocal :  this  principle  would  not  in  such  a  case  be  preserved.  The 
Constitution  requires  an  adoption  in  toto,  and  foreveu.  It  had  been  so  adopted  by  the  other  States, 
An  adoption  for  a  limited  time  would  be  as  defective  as  an  adoption  of  some  of  the  articles  only. 
The  idea  of  reserving  a  right  to  withdraw  was  started  at  Richmond,  and  considered  as  a  conditional 
ratification,  which  was  itself  abandoned  as  worse  than  a  rejection." 

In  a  letter  written  to  Mr.  Webster  in  1833,  Mr.  Madison  says  : 

"  I  return  you  my  thanks  for  your  late  very  powerful  speech  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
It  crushes  nullification,  aud  mitst  hasten  au  nbuudoument  of  seceaaion." 

Speaking  in  the  same  letter  of  the  Constitution,  he  says : 

"  It  mtikes  the  government,  like  other  governments,  to  operate  directly  on  the  people; 
places  at  its  command  the  needful  physical  means  of  executing  its  powers  ;  and  finally, 
proelitims  its  supremacy,  and  that  of  the  laws  made  in  pursuance  of  it,  over  the  Constitu- 
tions and  laws  of  the  States — the  powers  of  the  Government  being  exercised,  as  in  ot'her 
elective  and  responsible  governments,  under  the  control  of  its  constituents,  the  people, 
and  the  Legislatures  of  the  States,  and  subject  to  the  revolutionary  rights  of  the 
people  in  extreme  eases." 

Mr.  Madison  to  Edward  Everett  (Miles's  Register,  supplement  to  vol.  43,  pp.  25,  26, 
27),  August,  1830,  says: 

A  political  system  that  does  not  provide  for  a  peaceable  and  authoritative  termination 
of  existing  controversies  would  not  be  more  than  the  shadow  of  a  government,  the  object 
and  end  of  a  real  government  being  the  substitution  of  law  and  order  for  uncertainty, 

confusion,  and  violence In  the  event  of  a  failure  of  every  constitutional  resort, 

and  an  accumulation  of  lasurpations  and  abuses,  rendering  passive  obedience  and  non-re- 
sistance a  greater  evil  than  resistance  and  revolution,  there  can  remain  but  one  resort,  the 
last  of  all — an  appeal  from  the  canceled  obligations  of  the  constitutional  compact  to  the 
original  rights  and  the  law  of  self-preservation.  This  is  the  ultima  ratio  of  all  govern- 
ments, whether  consolidated,  confederated,  or  a  compound  of  both.  It  cannot  be  doubted 
that  a  single  member  of  the  Union  in  the  extremity  supposed,  but  in  tuat  only,  would 
have  a  right,  as  an  extra  and  ultra  constitutional  right,  to  make  the  appeal." 

Again,  Mr.  Madison  says  : 

"  The  distinguished  names  and  high  authorities  which  appear  to  have  asserted  and 
given  a  practical  scope  to  this  doctrine,  (nullification),  entitles  it  to  a  respect  which  it 
might  be  difficult  otherwise  to  feel  for  it." 

Under  the  old  articles  of  confederation,  which  I  shall  refer  to  more  particularly  hero- 
after,  Mr.  Jefferson  held  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  give  the  power  to  Congress  under 
the  Constitution  to  enforce  anything — for  example,  contributions  of  money — for  they 
have  it  by  the  law  of  nature.     He  says  : 

"  It  has  been  so  often  said,  as  to  be  generally  believed,  that  Congress  has  no  power,  % 
the  confederation,  to  enforce  anything — for  example,  contributions  of  money.  It  was  not 
necessary  to  give  them  that  power  expressly — they  have  it  by  the  law  of  nature.  When  tioo 
parties  make  a  compact,  there  results  to  each  the  potver  of  compelling  the  other  to  execute  it.  Com- 
pulsion was  never  so  easy  as  in  our  case,  when  a  single  frigate  would  soon  levy  on  the  com- 
merce of  any  State  the  deficiency  of  its  contributions." 

There,  under  the  old  articles  of  confederation,  Mr.  Jefferson  recognizes  the  power  of  the 
Government  to  resort  to  force  by  sending  troops  into  a  State  and  compelling  contributions. 

You  have  all  heard  of  the  Hartford  Convention,  but  you  never  heard  the  name  of  any 
man  connected  with  that  treasonable  movement  [which  first  proposed  to  secede  from  the 
Union  during  the  war]  but  in  terms  of  scorn  and  ignominy;  Mr.  AVebster,  who  was 
charged  by  his  political  opponents  with  having  boon  a  member  of  that  Convention,  but 
which  he  uniformly  disclaimed,  yet  even  he  with  all  his  subsequent  services  to  his  country, 
did  not  live  long  enough  to  remove  the  stain  that  rested  upon  him  under  the  chai'ge  that 
he  was  a  member  of  that  l)()dy,  the  design  of  which  was  disunion  or  revolution,  under 
circumstunces  one  hundred  fold  more  trying  than  those  under  which  we  are  now  threat- 
ened with  it.  At  that  time  there  was  another  gentleman  who  exerted  a  great  influence 
over  the  minds  of  the  Democracy  of  the  State,  who  is  now  no  more — I  mean  Thomas 
Ritchie,  of  The  Richmond  Enquirer.     The  Enquirer  of  that  day — then  under  the  control  of 


12  SPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  JOHN  M.  BOTTS. 

the  party  headed  by  Mr,  Jefferson — and  with  the  whole  body  of  the  ablest  men  of  the 
Democracy  in  the  Union  as  its  contributors  and  advisers,  and  when  no  step  was  taken  by 
that  paper  that  was  not  approved  by  the  "Junto" — said: 

"No  man,  no  association  of  men,  no  State  or  set  of  States  has  a  right  to  withdraw  itself 
from  the  Union  of  its  own  accord.  The  same  power  which  knit  us  together  can  unknit. 
The  same  formality  which  formed  the  links  of  the  Union  is  necessary  to  dissolve  it.  The 
majority  of  States  which  formed  the  Union  must  consent  to  the  withdrawal  of  any  one 
branch  of  it.  Until  that  consent  has  been  obtained,  any  attempt  to  dissolve  the  Union  or 
obstruct  the  efficacy  of  its  Constitutional  laws,  is  Treason — Tkeason  to  all  intents 

AND  PURPOSES." 

I  need  hardly  refer  you  to  the  proclamation  of  General  Jackson  in  1833,  which  is, 
doubtless,  familiar  to  many  of  you,  in  which  he  declared  he  w'ould  enforce  the  execution 
of  the  laws  in  South  Carolina,  when  she  refused  to  submit  to  the  revenue  laws.  Yes,  and 
though  he  was  the  Commander-in-Chief  of  the  Army  and  Navy  of  the  United  States, 
and  had  control  of  both  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  him  to  execute  the  laws,  not  being 
able  to  measure  the  exact  amount  of  the  resistance  his  troops  would  meet  with,  he  called 
on  Congress  for  additional  forces  under  what  has  been  known  as  the  "Force  Bill,"  and 
they  gave  him  all  he  desired,  and  they  did  right,  for  the  reason  that  if  the  law  was  wrong 
it  should  have  been  repealed,  and  if  not  repealed,  whether  right  or  wrong,  as  long  as  it 
remained  on  the  Statute-book  of  the  United  States  it  should  have  been  enforced,  fur  there 
is  no  such  thing  as  government  without  law,  and  no  such  thing  as  law  without  the  power 
to  enforce  it. 

After  stating  that  a  Convention  held  in  the  State  of  South  Carolina  had  ordained  that 
that  State  was  no  longer  a  member  of  the  Union  unless  the  revenue  laws  were  repealed, 
Gen.  Jackson  says  : 

"  No  act  of  violent  opposition  to  the  laws  has  yet  been  committed,  but  such  a  state  of 
things  is  hourly  apprehended,  and  it  is  the  intent  of  this  instrument  to  proclaim  not  only 
that  the  duty  imposed  upon  me  by  the  Constitution  to  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully 
executed,  shall  be  performed  to  the  extent  of  the  powers  already  vested  in  me  by  the  law, 
or  of  such  others  as  the  wisdom  of  Congress  shall  desire  and  intrust  to  me  for  that  purpose, 
but  to  warn  the  citizens  of  South  Carolina,  who  have  been  deluded  into  an  opposition  to 
the  laws,  of  the  danger  they  will  incur    by  obedience  to   the   illegal  and   disorganizing 

ordinance  of  the  Convention The  laws  of  the  United  States  must  be  executed.     I 

have  no  discretionary  power  on  the  subject.  My  duty  is  emphatically  pronounced  in  the 
Constitution.  Those  who  told  you  that  you  might  peaceably  prevent  their  execution,  de- 
ceived you.  They  could  not  have  been  deceived  themselves ;  they  know  that  a  forcible 
opposition  could  alone  prevent  the  execution  of  the  laws,  and  they  know  that  such  opposi- 
tion must  be  repelled.  Their  object  is  Disunion.  But  be  not  deceived  by  names.  Dis- 
union by  armed  force  is  treason.  Are  you  ready  to  incur  its  guilt?  If  you  are,  on  the 
heads  of  the  instigators  of  the  act  be  the  dreadful  consequences :  on  their  heads  be  the 
dishonor  ;  but  on  yours  rnay  fall  the  punishment.  On  your  unhappy  State  will  inevit- 
ably fall  all  the  evils  of  the  conflict  you  force  upon  the  Government  of  your  country.  It 
cannot  accede  to  the  mad  project  of  Disunion,  of  which  you  would  be  the  first  victims. 
Its  first  Magistrate  cannot  if  he  would  avoid  the  performance  of  his  duty.  The  conse- 
quence must  be  fearful  for  you,  distressing  to  your  fellow-citizens  here,  and  to  the  friends 
of  good  government  throughout  the  world.  ."....  Snatch  from  the  archives  of  your 
State  the  disorganizing  edict  of  its  convention:  bid  the  members  to  re-assemble  and  prom- 
ulgate the  decided  expression  of  your  will  to  remain  in  the  faith  which  alone  can  conduct 
you  to  safety,  prosperity,  and  honor.  Tell  them  that  compared  to  disunion  all  other 
evils  are  light,  because  that  brings  with  it  an  accumulation  of  ills.  Declare  that  you  will 
never  take  the  field  unless  the  star  spangled  banner  of  your  country  shall  float  over  you; 
that  you  will  not  be  stigmatized  when  dead,  and  dishonored  and  scorned  while  you  live, 
as  the  authors  of  the  first  attack  on  the  Constitution  of  your  country.  Its  destroyers  you 
cannot  be.  You  may  disturb  its  peace  ;  you  may  interrupt  the  course  of  its  prosperity ; 
you  may  cloud  its  reputation  for  stability  ;  but  its  tranquility  will  be  restored,  its  prosperity 
will  return,  and  the  stain  upon  its  national  character  will  be  transferred  and  remain  an 
eternal  blot  on  the  memory  of  those  who  caused  the  disorder." 

The  force  bill  passed  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  32  to  1,  and  in  the  House  by  149  to  48. 
But  apart  from  all  this,  I  hold  in  my  hand  an  authority  still  higher  than  that,  an 
authority  higher  than  law,  and  discarding  all  those  gentlemen  have  said,  in  former  times, 
supposing  them  to  have  left  nothing  upon  record,  I  still  appeal  to  the  Constitution  of  my 
country  to  show  that  there  is  no  such  right  as  the  right  of  secession.  [Great  applause.] 
This  Constitution  declares  that. 

"  This  Constitution,  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  which  shall  be  made  in  pursuance 

thereof,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  and  the  Judges  in  every  State  shall  be  bound 

thereby,  anything  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding." 

Who  adopted  this   Constitution  of  the  United"^  States  ?     We,  the   people  of  Virginia, 


SPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  JOHN  M.  B0TT3.  13 

through  our  representatives  in  Convention,  are  just  as  much  parties  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  as  to  our  own  Constitution.  But  let  us  go  buck  a  little.  Let  us  fjo 
back  to  tlie  Articles  of  Confederation  under  which  we  lived  befure  the  Constitution  was 
adopted,  and  see  what  we  did  there. 

My  purpose  is  to  show  you  thai  this  is  a  perpetual  Umon.  which  there  is  no  power  to 
destroy.  [Applause.]  Under  the  old  Articles  of  ConlVderation  it  is  proved  "  that  no  two 
States  shall  enter  into  any  alliances  whatever  between  iheni  without  the  consent  of  Congress, 
specifying  accurately  the  purpose  for  which  the  same  is  to  be  entered  into,  and  how  long 
it  shall  continue."     Again,  Article  13th: 

"  Every  State  shall  abide  by  the  determination  of  the  United  States  in  Congress  assem- 
bled on  all  questions  which  by  this  confederation  are  submitted  to  them  :  and  the  articles 
of  this  confed«'ration  shall  be  inviolably  observed  by  every  State,  AND  THE  UNION  SHALL 
BE  PERPETUAL." 

And  the  concluding  article  reads : 

♦'  And  we  do  further  solemnly  plight  and  engage  the  faith  of  our  respective  constituents, 
that  the}'  shall  abide  by  the  deterniiiiatiun  of  the  United  States  in  Congress  asembied  on 
all  questions  which  by  the  said  confederation  are  submitted  to  them.  And  that  the 
articles  thereof  shall  be  inviolably  observed  bv  the  States  we  respectfully  represent  and  that 
THE  UNION  SHALL  BE  PERPETUAL." 

There  was  the  compact  between  the  States, — there  was  the  marriage  ceremony  solemnly 
performed  in  the  face  of  the  world,  by  which  we  bound  ourselves  together  for  better  or  fur 
worse,  for  richer,  for  poorer,  in  sickness  and  iu  health,  in  prosperity  and  in  adversity, 
througli  good  and  evil  report,  till  death  do  us  part.  [Great  apjilause.]  And  under  this 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  it  is  declared  that  "-we  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect  union,  establish  justice,  insure  domestic  tranquil- 
lity, &c.,  &c.,  &c.,  do  ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution  for  the  L^nited  States  of 
America." 

"  To  make  this  a  more  perfect  Union."  And  in  what  respect  did  they  make  it  moro 
perfect  ?  They  provided  for  its  perpetuity  by  giving  to  the  Government  the  power  to 
enforce  its  laws  and  protect  its  own  existence. 

Yes,  but  gentlemen  say,  it  is  a  reserved  right!  JIoio  was  it  reserved  ?  When  was  it  re- 
served ?  Where  was  it  reserved  ?  It  is  a  reserved  riirht  in  ti)eir  own  imaginations,  and  there 
only.  What  a  calumny  and  libel  upon  the  name  and  fame  of  the  great  and  good  men  who  made 
the  Constitution,  to  say  that  when  they  declared  that  tlie  constitution  of  the  United  St;ites,  and 
all  laws  made  under  it,  should  be  the  supreme  law  of  tlie  land,  and  that  the  Judges  of  llie  courts 
in  the  several  States  should  be  bound  thereby  ;  when  they  prohibited  you  from  the  right,  even 
in  your  organic  law,  in  the  adoption  of  your  State  Constitution,  to  say  or  do  any  thing  that 
Would,  to  any  extent,  conflict  with  any  law  made  under  it ;  that  they  reserve  the  right  to  permit 
the  violation  of  the  ('onstitution  and  all  law,  at  any  moment  it  suited  their  pleasure,  whim, 
caprice,  or  supposed  interest  to  do  so.  Why,  when  did  tiiat  right  begin  ?  Here  I  have  shown 
you  it  was  a  perpetual  contract,  that  it  was  never  intended  to  be  dissolved  ;  and  yet,  after  they 
l)ad  done  their  work,  one  State,  on  the  very  next  day,  had  the  right  to  withdraw  and  bn  uk  up 
the  whole  !  with  or  without  cause  ;  they  being  made  judges  of  tlie  cause.  ^ 

Reserved  rijrhts  I 

And  what  is  the  argument  used  by  Mr.  Yancey,  in  a  speech  he  made  the  other  day  in  Bos- 
ton ?  Just  that  which  is  used  by  all  tliese  gentlemen  wliotalk  about  reserved  rights — that  all  tlic 
powers  not  granted  to  the  Federal  Government  are  reserved  to  the  States.  W\'ll,  I  nevei  heard 
one  of  these  gentlemen  quote  correctly  that  leature  of  the  Constitution  yet.  Whether  they  omit 
it  from  ignorance  or  design,  it  is  not  for  me  to  say.  Unless  they  mean  to  mislead  the  public 
mind,  1  can  hardly  account  for  it,  why  it  is  they  do  not  quote  it  rightly.     The  article  reads  : 

"The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to 
the  Stales,  are  reserved  respectively  to  the  State:*  or  to  the  people." 

Now,  I  have  just  read  another  clause  of  the  constitution,  wiiich  shows  you  u-hat  is  prohibited 
to  the  States.  And  what  is  prohibited  to  the  States?  It  is  that  you  shall  do  nothing  by  State 
law  or  constitutional  provision  that  shall  conflict  with  tiie  perpetual  contract  made  under  it,  by 
opposing  or  obstructing  the  Constitution  and  laws  made  under  it. 

Oh  !  that  I  had  the  eloquence  of  your  heavenly  gifted  and  venerated  father  [turning  to  a  son  of 
Patrick  ficnry,  who  sat  near  him  on  the  platform]  that  I  might  make  my  voice  heard  through- 
out the  lengtli  and  breadth  of  tlie  land.  The  Union  would,  were  I  a  Patrick  Henry,  or  he  alive, 
need  but  one  advocate  to  insure  its  satety.     Unbounded  applause) 

"  The  powers  not  delegated  to  tlie  United  States  by  the  Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it,  are 
reserved  to  the  States  or  the  people,"  and  Mr.  Yancy  argues  that  because  power  was  not  dele 
gated  to  the  Federal  Government  to  destroy  itself,  therefijre  the  power  was  reserved  to 
the  States  to  destroy  it.  What  were  the  powers  reserved  ?  Powers  fur  all  legitimate 
subjects  of  legislation — your  own  domestic  institutions,  fi»r  instaucc — Slavery  (or  t)ne. 
That  is  a  power  withheld  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  It  is  a  power  re- 
served too  from  the  Congress,  the  States,  and  the  people  wlio  own  the  slaves.  Tlie  pewer  to  sol- 
emnize marriages,  to  establish  the  laws  of  descent,  to  reguLte  the  right  of  suffrage.     Bui.  is  the 


14  SPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  JOHN  M.  BOTTS. 

power  to  destroy  reserved  ?  It  is  prohibited  in  express  terms.  The  Federal  Government  wag 
not  clothed  with  the  power  to  destroy  my  person-or  my  property  ;  ergo^  says  Mr.  Yancey,  thnt 
power  is  reserved  to  the  States  or  the  people,  and  only  reserved  to  the  States  or  the  people,  be- 
cause it  is  not  conferred  upon  Congress.  I  do  not  know  whether  the  power  is  vested  in  you, 
the  people,  to  deprive  me  of  my  property  or  to  cut  my  throat ;  but  such  power  is  in  you  or  in 
the  State  Government  because  it  is  not  granted  to  Congress;  and  therefore  all  powers  not  con- 
ferred on  the  Federal  Government  are  reserved  to  the  people  or  to  the  States. 

As  I  said  before,  there  is  something  solemn  in  the  marriage  compact  of  these  States. 
The  wife,  on  entering  the  marriage  state,  binds  herself  to  obe}'  her  husband  just  as  we 
bound  ourselves  to  obey  the  laws  of  the  country,  and  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  But  she  has  an  ugly,  crabbed,  old  husband  with  whom  she  becomes  dissatisfied, 
and  she  claims  that  she  reserves  to  herself,  in  her  own  mind,  the  right  to  destroy  by 
poison,  and  withdraw  in  search  of  a  more  congenial  partner.  Some  old  man  has  an  ugly 
old  wife,  and  sees  a  handsome,  rich  young  woman,  and  falls  in  love  with  youth,  beauty, 
and  Avealth,  and  though  he  did  bind  himself  perpetually  to  the  marriage  contract,  yet, 
casting  aside  the  marriage  tie,  and  forgetting  the  sacred  compact,  he  says,  "  Though  I  did 
enter  into  such  an  agreement,  there  were  mental  reservations  of  my  own  [laughter] — 
certain  reserved  rights  by  which  I  can  withdraw,  and  form  another  and  more  favorable 
alliance." 

Now  I  would  advise  all  the  secession  men  to  go  over  to  the  Free  Love  party.  [Laugh- 
ter.] There  is  where  they  belong,  and  there  is  where  their  doctrines  would  be  appre- 
ciated.     [Renewed  laughter.] 

But  in  sober  truth,  what  does  this  doctrine  of  the  right  of  secession  lead  us  to? 
In  the  year  1803,  Mr.  Jefterson  purchased  the  Territory  of  Louisiana  from  France,  and 
through  that  territory  runs  the  Mississippi  river.     He  acknowledged  there  was  no  con- 
stitutional authority  for  the  purchase,  and  even  asked  for  an  amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion legalizing  what  he  had  done.     And  why  did  he  do  it  ? 

Now,  why  did  Mr.  Jeflerson  purchase  Louisiana,  in  violation  of  all  constitutional 
authority?  It  was  because  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  was  essential  to  the  interest 
of  a  number  of  the  old  States  as  well  as  to  the  interest  of  a  number  since  formed.  It 
was  necessary  to  the  commerce  of  Western  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  Kentucky,  Tennessee, 
and  Mississippi — to  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  all  the  North  Western  States.  He  paid 
$15,000,000  for  it — a  misserable  pittance  in  comparison  with  its  real  value. 

Mr.  Jeflerson  made  a  purchase  indispensable  to  the  commerce  and  welfare  of  the  country. 
But  when  we  had  bought  it,  and  made  for  the  convenience  of  our  own  people  a  magnifi- 
cent trade,  and  admitted  Louisiana  as  a  State,  how  easy  it  would  have  been  on  the  part 
of  Louisiana  to  say,  "  I  do  not  like  this  Constitution  of  yours  quite  as  well  as  I  thought  I 
would.  I  think  I  can  do  better  to  set  up  in  business  as  an  independent  State,  and  levy 
tonnage  dut}''  on  all  the  produce  that  comes  down  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  rivers."  They 
would  have  said,  "  We  purchased  and  paid  for  you,  and  admitted  you  into  copartnership 
with  us;  but  since  you  did  come  in,  you  must  remain  perpetually." 

How  would  it  be  in  the  case  of  the  purchase  of  Cuba  ?  Great  anxiety  has  been  dis- 
plaved  on  the  part  of  this  Government  to  purchase  Cuba,  and  a  minister  was  sent  for  the 
purpose  of  making  an  offer  of  $200,000,000  or  8300,000,000  for  that  island.  Now,  estab- 
lish the  doctrine  of  the  right  of  secession,  and  see  how  it  will  operate  in  the  event  that 
she  be  purchased.  You  admit  her  into  the  Union.  There  are  reserved  rights  on  the 
part  of  Cuba,  and  there  is  a  reserved  determination  on  the  part  of  Spain.  The  day  after 
the  admission  of  Cuba  this  reserved  determination  of  Spain  is  whispered  into  her  ear. 
She  is  equal  in  all  respects  to  the  other  States  of  the  Union,  and  with  equal  rights  to  go 
out  or  stay  in. 

She  demands  of  the  Government  an  exorbitant  duty  to  be  laid  on  sugars,  for  her  es- 
pecial benefit — it  is  denied,  and  Cuba  secedes  from  the  L^nion.  Do  you  think  Mr.  Bu- 
chanan would  have  any  difficulty  in  purchasing  Cuba  if  this  were  the  established  doc- 
trine of  the  United  States?  I  think  an  arrangement  could  very  easily  be  made  with 
Spain  to  part  with  Cnba,  if  such  were  the  case. 

How  in  regard  to  Texas  ?  we  purchased  Texas  of  herself,  at  a  cost  of  810,000,000.  We 
went  to  war  also  for  Texas,  and  paid  in  blood  and  treasure,  millions  for  the  total.  It  was 
matter  of  negotiation  whether  we  should  assume  her  public  debt,  or  not,  it  was  doneindirectly, 
but  not  iu  terms,  she  was  left  in  the  enjoyment  of  all  her  public  lands  in  lieu  ot  the  assumption 
of  her  debts,  but  that  would  not  affect  the  question.  Suppose  the  debt  had  been  assumed  to 
other  foreign  governments,  how  then  would  the  case  have  stood  ?  We  would  first  have  paid  an 
equivalent  for  the  State,  then  we  would  have  gone  through  a  bloody  war  on  her  account,  then  we 
came  under  the  obligation  to  meet  all  just  demands  held  by  other  governments  against  her, 
and  at  this  point  she  goes  to  playing  pranks,  and  cutting  up  her  heels  just  as  South  Carolina  is  now 
doing,  and  proclaims  her  independence,  and  sells  herself  again  to  England,  or  if  you  prefer  the 
term,  annexes  herself  to  England,  or  enters  into  treaties  of  alliance  offensive  and  defensive  with 
England  or  France,  or  both,  as  South  Carolina  now  proposes  to  do.     What  would  sensible,  rea- 


vSPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  JOHN  ]SI.  BOTTS.  15 

soning,  reflecting  men  have  to  say  about  it?     Yet  her  right  do  all  this,  is  just  exactly  equal  to 
tiiiit  ot' South  Carolina  in  her  present  position. 

I  liave  been  talking  about  the  right  to  dissolve  the  Union.  I  now  come  to  the  power  to  do  so. 
Have  you  the ^ou'cr  to  secede  ?  If  the  United  States  Government,  numbering  32,0U0,()(l0  puo- 
pic,  is  clothed  with  the  power  that  I  think  it  is,  and  that  .Madison  suid  it  was,  and  wliich  you 
find  during  the  Administration  of  General  Jackson  it  actually  was,  I  think  it  would  bo  a  very 
difficult  m:itter  to  oppose  or  resist  the  United  States,  Tliere  are  3:2,(J00,UU0  of  inhabitants,  in- 
cluiiing  blacks  and  whites,  and  I  suppose  about  28,1)00,000  tree  whites  m  the  United  Statt:s. 

We  are  in  the  habit  of  hearing  gentletnen,  on  the  Fourth  of  July,  making  patriotic  speeches,  de- 
claring that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  able  and  ready  to  cojie  with  the  world  in  arms 
if  necessary  ;  and  yet  it  has  not  the  power  to  resist  little  South  Carolina.  [Applause.]  That  is 
playing  the  game  of  bluflf  rather  too  strong — it  does  not  dovetail  together  well. 

A  South  Carolina  orator  will  say  the  same  of  the  Government,  that  the  combined  forces  of  the 
woiKl  cannot  overthrow  it :  and  yet  a  "retired  philosopher"  on  the  banks  of  the  Potomac,  can  do  it 
with  twelve  intrepid  Virginians. 

What  is  the  power  and  what  are  the  resources  of  the  United  States? 

When  you  talk  about  all  the  Southern  States  combined  competing  with  the  Federal  Government, 
it  is  all  moonshine  and  nonsense  when  you  come  to  put  it  into  practical  operation. 

Suppose  you  all  go  out,  what  do  you  carry  ?  You  carry  nothing,  but  you  leave  everything  be- 
hind you.  You  leave  the  Public  Treasury.  There  is  not  much  of  that  just  now,  however,  under 
Mr.  Buchanan's  Administration  :  but  it  is  coming  in,  by  degrees.  [Laughter.]  You  leave  the  aruiy, 
the  navy,  the  public  lands,  the  fortifications,  all  the  dock  yards,  all  the  public  property  of  every  de- 
seri])tion,  munitions  of  war  and  all.     And  what  have  you  got  to  tight  with? 

Virginia  could  not  furnish  clothes  foi'  her  men.  It  has  taken  all  our  money  to 
hang  John  Brown  and  his  confederates.  [Laughter.]  What  do»  you  propose  to  carry 
out  with  you  ?  Nothing.  And  what  will  you  fight  upon  ?  Nothing.  Alabama  is  in 
a  state  of  actual  starvation.  She  had  to  call  the  Legislature  together  to  provide  the 
common  necessaries  of  life  for  her  people.  I  will  tell  you  my  opinion  on  the  subject. 
I  mean  no  personal  disrespect  to  any  gentleman.  I  doubt  not,  as  Mark  Anthony  said  of  Brutus, 
•'  and  the  rest,"  they  are  all,  all  honorable  men ;  men  who  are  very  bold,  chlvalric  and  patriotic, 
possessing  any  amount  of  physical  courage;  but  I  do  say,  a  more  base,  unmanly  and  co^vardly 
proposi'ion  was  never  submitted  to  an  intelligent  people  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  [Applause.] 
What  is  their  proposition?  It  is  to  run  away,  not  only  before  we  are  whipped,  but  before  we  are 
even  struck  a  blow.  [Great  applause.]  If  this  was  a  large  private  estate,  to  be  divided  among 
us  all,  would  you  run  away  from  it?  If  all  the  people  of  the  Union  were  to  go  in,  and  each  get 
his  share,  how  many  do  you  suppose  would  secede  and  forfeit  their  share?  Not  one.  Suppose 
they  aU  held  the  bonds  of  the  United  S'ates  fbr  the  moderate  sum  of  $10,000  each,  to  be  forfeited 
by  them  whenever  they  seceded  from  the  Union,  how  many  do  you  think  would  run  away  and 
leave  them  behind? 

Now,  if  you  would  not  run  away  from  your  private  estate,  why  attempt  to  persuade  me  to  run 
from  my  public  estate?  Tbis  is  our  Government;  this  is  our  Union,  our  Treasury,  our  Army,  our 
Navy;  it  all  belongs  to  us — vviiy  persuade  us  to  run  away  and  leave  them  behind,  I  say  not  only 
before  we  are  whipped,  but  before  we  are  struck  a  blow? 

No,  I  will  not  ruu — I  see  no  occasion  for  running — and  when  the  occasion  does  come,  which  I 
do  not  look  for,  I  will  claim  my  own,  and  I  will  tight,  if  jiecessary,  for  my  rights  in  the  Union. 

What  would  you  think  of  some  rich  old  farmer,  who  had  a  tine  estate  in  copartnership  with 
somebody  else.  He  had  made  a  large  crop  of  tobacco,  bad  plenty  of  wheat  in  his  barn,  and  corn 
very  abundant — enough  of  this  world's  goods,  in  fact,  to  enable  him  to  enjoy  all  that  a  luxurious 
appetite  could  desire — and  he  was  suddenly  to  quit  his  estate,  his  family  and  his  crops,  and  the 
next  thing  you  heard  of  him  he  was  down  in  Texas,  and  somebody  asked  him,  "  What  induced 
you  to  ran  away  and  leave  such  a  fine  estate?"  and  his  reply  should  be,  "  Oti!  I  had  a  partner 
who  every  morning  came  to  the  fence  and  shook  his  fist  at  me,  and  threatened  to  take  my  estate 
from  me;  and  I  thought  it  best  to  run  off  and  leave  it  all  to  him!"     [Laughter.] 

That  is  just  what  these  people  propose  to  do.  I  am  for  standing  here  and  fighting  for  my 
rights,  if  necessary.  They  call  me  a  submissionist.  What  do  I  submit  to?  I  submit  to  the  Con- 
stiturjon  and  the  laws  of  my  country.  [Applause.]  And  even  in  my  day,  gentlemen,  the  time 
has  been  when  he  who  was  not  a  submissionist,  in  the  sense  in  which  I  am  a  submissionint,  would 
have  entitled  himself  to  a  cravat  not  made  of  silk.  [Applause.]  I  hope  these  gentlemen  will  not 
pash  the  matter  to  such  an  extreme  as  to  entitle  themselves  to  it;  but  if  they  do,  I  trust  such  ex- 
amples will  be  made  as  will  have  salutary  and  effective  influence  for  the  future.     [Applause.] 

Havin;^  discussed  the  riirht  and  the  power  to  secede  from  the  Union,  I  say  we  will  not  be  dis- 
turbed with  this  ghost  of  disunion,  and  you  will  hear  no  more  of  it  after  passion  has  had  time  w 
subside,  because  there  is  no  cause  for  it.  Is  there  any  law  of  which  they  complain  ?  Is  there  any 
man  who  is  now  disturbed  by  any  federal  law  in  the  quiet  possession  of  his  property?  There  is 
no',  a  law  on  the  statute  book  which  the  Democracy  of  the  Southern  country  has  not  passed. 
They  have  had  absolute  and  uncontrolled  management  of  the  legislation  of  the  country  from  the 
year  1800  to  the  year  1860. 

So  that,  if  there  is  any  law  on  the  statute  book  that  ought  not  to  have  been  passed,  just  get  out 
of  the  way  and  we  will  repeal  all  those  laws  for  you.     [Applause.] 

Some  gentlemen  seem  to  open  their  eyes  when  I  say  the  Democratic  party  has  had  control  of 
the  Government  for  the  past  sixty  years.  It  would  be  more  correct  to  say  that  the  Opposition  to 
Democracy  has  never  had  the  legislative  control  of  the  country.  I  know  they  think  there  have 
been  8>3veral  intervals,  such  as  the  administrations  of  Mr.  Adams  and  others.  But  Congress  was 
oppose!  to  him  and  he  had  no  legislative  power.  So  in  1810  we  elected  Gen.  Harrison,  who  died 
withiu  a  month  after  his  inauguration.    We  then  had  both  branches  of  Congress,  and  the  Presi- 


16  SPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  JOHN  M.  BOTTS. 

dent  on  our  side.  But  General  Harri«on  died  before  Congress  met,  and  consequently  nothing  was 
done  during  that  period.  Vv^hea  he  died  we  had  a  Vice  President  and  the  two  Houses  of  Con- 
gress; but  I  do  not  think  Ti'ler  had  beea  there  a  week  before  he  was  purchased  by  the  Domocraiic 
party — a  debt  which  they  afterward  repudiated.  I  mention  this  only  as  a  historical  fact  and  from 
no  desire  to  deal  unkindiv  with  things  long  passed  away.  We  all  know  he  deserted  us  to  become 
a  rcDresentative  of  ihe  D.emocratic  party;  and  when  we  had  the  two  Houses  of  Congress  we  had 
no  President  to  caiTV  out  our  views;  so  they  still  continued  in  control  of  the  legislation  of  the 
country.  So  it  was' when  General  Taylor  was  elected;  and  when  Fillmore  was  there  we,  had  both 
branches  of  Congress  against  us;  so  that,  in  fact,  we  have  never  had  the  control  of  the  Govern- 
ment from  the  year  1800  down  to  the  present  day. 

Well,  if  there  is  anv  law  of  <vhich  complaint  is  made,  they  alone  are  to  blame.  Is  that  a  suffi- 
cient or  just  excuse  for  a  dis^iolution  of  this  Government  ?  It  may  be  just  cause  for  us  to  complain; 
but  not  for  us  even  to  dissolve  the  Uoion.  Now  these  gentlemen  use  a  very  specious  and  plausi- 
ble argument — one  that  is  acceptable  to  the  public,  or  one  that  seems  to  take  with  every  unreflect- 
ing maa— that  we  have  the  power  and  the  right  to  carry  our  slave  property  into  the  Territories. 
Well,  I  am  not  going  to  tell  vou  what  T  think  ought  to  be  the  law;  but  I  will  tell  you  what  is  the 
Constitution  and  the  lav.  The  idea  is  that  what  is  property  in  one  State  is  necessarily  property 
in  all  the  States.    But  it  is  not  true. 

For  example: — A  short  time  aaro  the  game  of  billiards  was  prohibited  in  this  State  by  law,  and 
a  billiard  table  could  not  be  used  in  Virginia.  In  New  York  they  are  property,  and  you  may  find 
a  manufacturer  of  the  article  with  $20,000,  $30,000  or  $10,000  worth  in  his  establishment.  Was 
it  property  here?  Yes,  it  was  property ;  that  is.  he  could  bring  it  here,  and  you  could  not  take  it 
from  him;  but  he  could  not  use  it  as  a  billiard  table,  and  therefore  was  not  property  that  could  be 
used  as  such.  So  it  is  now  with  distilleries  where  the  Maine  Liquor  Law  has  been  adopted.  You 
cannot  carry  your  distilleries,  to  be  used  as  such,  in  many  of  the  States.  Bank  notes  are  not 
property  everv^where.  As,  for  example,  in  the  State  of  ISTew  York,  they  authorize  the  issue  and 
circulation  of  notes  below'the  denomination  of  five  dollars.  In  Virginia  they  are  prohibited. 
They  are  not  property  here.  Suppose  there  was  a  law  of  that  sort  in  Kansas,  Territorial  or  Con- 
gressional, prohibiting  the  circulation  of  all  bank  notes.  You  sell  out  your  estate  here,  receive 
payment  in  bank  notes,  and  emigrate  to  Kansas,  and  carry  your  bank  notes  with  you  into  the 
State  or  Territory  of  Kansas,  you'  cannot  use  them  there,  they  not  being  property.  So  with  a 
great  variety  of  things.  Race  horses  are  not  property  in  New  Jersey;  that  is  to  say,  racing  is 
prohibited  there  by  law.  and,  although  you  may  carry^  your  race  horse  to  New  Jersey,  if  you  at- 
tempt to  use  him  as  such  you  incur  the  penalty  of  the  law;  he  is,  therefore,  useless  to  you  for  the 
only  purpose  for  which  he  is  valuable. 

If  you  set  out  to  morroAv  with  a  drove  of  hogs,  another  man  with  a  drove  of  horses,  an- 
other with  mules  and  another  with  negroes — all  wanting  to  go  into  Kansas — the  first  three  will 
go  there  without  askin^r  .orotection  for  their  property  from  the  Federal  Government.  But  the 
inan  with  the  negroes  will  not  go  there  without  asking  protection.  The  reason  is  this :  You  will 
have  to  learn  it  some  time  or  other,  and  you  might  as  well  know  it  now.  The  reason  is,  that 
6l  ives  are  not  recogoised  as  property  under  the  common  law.  While  negroes  are  not  property 
your  horses  are;  and  if  you  carry  your  horses  or  mules  into  Kansas  they  are  protected  by  the 
common  law;  but  if  you  carrv  your  negroes  there,  they  are  not  protected,  because  Slavery  is  a 
municipal  institution,  and  requires  special  law  for  its  protection.  Why  is  this  ?  Because,  in  the 
year  1772,  a  decision  was  rendered  by  Lord  Mansfield  which  established  the  law  on  this  subject. 
Prior  to  that  year  slaves  had  been  recognised  as  property,  and  the  rich  planters  of  the  West  India 
Islands  were  in  the  habit  of  carrying  their  negroes  to  En2;land  when  they  visited  that  country. 
If  they  escaped  from  them,  they  would  be  apprehended  and  thrown  into  jail,  so  that  their  owners 
could  recover  them,  put  them  on  board  a  ship  and  carry  them  home.  But  in  the  year  1772,  am  xu 
named  Stewart  carried  his  negro,  James  Summerset,  there,  who  ran  away.  He  was  apprehended 
and  thrown  into  prison,  was  then  carried  before  Lord  Mansfield  under  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus, 
who  finally  rendered  the  decision— as  you  will  find  in  Howell's  State  Tiials.  In  the  opinion  ren- 
dered. Lord  Mansfield  said : 

"  Slavery  is  of  such  a  nanire  that  it  is  incapable  of  being  introduced  on  any  reasons,  moral  or 
political,  but  onlv  by  positive  law,  and  it  is  so  odious  that  nothing  can  be  suffered  to  sustain  it 
but  positive  law." 

That  became  the  common  law  of  England,  and  we  being  the  Colonies  of  Great  Britain  at  the 
time,  it  became  the  common  law  of  the  Colonies,  and  it  was  so  recognised  by  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution,  at  the  time  of  its  formation  and  adoption,— the  evidence  of  which  is  to  be  found  in 
the  fact  that,  in  fixing:  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  relates  to  the  recovery  of  fuuitive 
slaves,  and  which  is  the  only  part  of  that  instrument  which  does  recognise  Slavery  at  all— and 
then  it  is  only  by  inference,  and  not  by  express  terms,  for  the  word  slave  was  purposely  excluded 
from  the  Constitution — that  clause  declares : 

"  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof" — not  under  this  Constitu- 
tion, but  "  under  the  laws  thereof — escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or 
regulation  therein,  be  discharged,"  &c..  &c. 

Mark  the  words,  and  remember  that  I  did  not  make  the  Constitution,  I  am  only  reading  it  as  I 
find  it;  but  it  is  manifest  that  the  framers  of  the  Government  regarded  it  as  local  and  municipal 
under  the  laws  of  those  States  which  recognised  and  protected  it.  The  public  mind  may  have 
undergone  a  great  change  in  the  South,  yet  we  must  hold  to  the  Constitution  as  it  is,  and  bear  in 
mind  it  has  undergone  no  change,  and  that  the  Northern  mind  has  changed  the  other  way;  but 
thji^y,  too,  must  hold  to  the  Constitution  as  it  is.  Why  did  they  use  this  peculiar  phraseology  ? 
Because  slaves  were  not  recognised  as  property  under  the  common  law,  and  they  did  not  mean  to 
recognise  it  under  the  Constitution.  It  was  a  local  law,  depending  entirely  upon  local  legislation 
for  protection,  and  Mr.  Madison  said  in  the  Convention,  "  he  thought  it  wrong  to  admit  in  the 
Constitution  that  there  could  be  property  in  men."  Now  they  say  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision  has 
set  all  that  aside,  and  you  have  the  same  right  to  carry  your  slaves  into  a  Territory  as  they  have 


SPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  JOH^S  M.  BOTTS.  IT 

to  carry  any  other  property.    What  is  that  decision  ?    It  is  not  worth  the  snuff  of  this  candle  to 
the  slaveholder. 

In  the  first  place,  the  Supreme  Court,  which  is  the  common  arbiter  by  which  we  must  all  abide, 
decided  that  they  had  no  jurisdiction  over  the  case,  because  Scott  was  of  African  extraction,  and 
was  not  a  citizen  of  the  United  States;  and  not  being  a  citizen,  he  had  no  right  to  appear  in  that 
Court,  and  they  had  no  jurisdiction  over  his  case. 

It  has  been  argued  that  when  they  so  decided  the  whole  case  was  thrown  out  of  the  Court,  and 
that  all  the  opinions  pronounced  after  that  were  nothing  but  the  political  opinions  of  some  of  the 
Judtres  on  the  bench. 

One  other  point,  pretended  to  be  settled  by  the  Supreme  Court,  is,  that  neither  Congress  nor 
the  Territorial  Lejjislature  has  the  power  to  legislate  to  exclude  Slavery  from  the  Territories. 
WfU.  they  have  not  done  it.  Congress  has  not  excluded  it  from  the  Territories,  nor  has  the 
Territorial  Legislature. 

AVhat  then?  Is  Slavery  legalized  there?  I  think  not;  and  those  gentlemen  know  not;  other- 
wise they  would  not  clamor  for  protection  there.  There  is  no  exclusion  of  Slavery  there;  but 
they  have  failed  to  do  what  is  necessary  for  its  security.  They  have  failed  to  make  laws  for  its 
protection.  The  Supreme  Court  cannot  mjike  laws  nor  force  legislation  on  the  part  of  Contrress — 
they  can  onlv  interpret  law  after  it  is  made.  No  law  has  been  passed  prohibiting  Slavery.  Yet, 
who  will  carry  his  slaves  to  Kansas  under  this  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  without  legislation  for  its 
protection?    Let  us  test  it  practically. 

Novv  we  will  Suppose  some  gentlemen  here  to  go  into  Kansas.  Mr.  A.  B.  starts  with  his  negroes 
to  go  into  Kansas.  He  starts  from  Virginia,  where  local  law  protects  him  in  the  possession  of 
his  slaves.  He  gets  into  the  State  of  Maryland,  and  what  law  is  he  subjected  to?  Is  he  not  subject 
to  the  laws  of  Maryland?  When  he  passed  the  limits  of  Virginia,  he  left  Virginia  laws  behind 
hira.  He  leaves  Maryland  and  gets  into  Pennsylvania,  and  becomes  subject  to  Pennsylvania  laws ; 
and  so  on  until  he  reaches  his  destination.  He  lands  in  Kansas,  and  there  he  is  with  the  Dred 
Scott  decision  to  protect  him.  Now  let  us  see  how  far  it  operates,  and  how  far  it  protects  him  in 
his  slave  property.  He  says  to  his  negroes:  "  Sam,  Bob,  let  us  go  to  work  and  cut  down  these 
trees;  let  us  build  a  shanty  and  then  cultivate  the  ground."  The  negroes  hear  his  orders,  but 
they  say,  "  we  do  not  feel  like  work  to-day,"  and  refuse  to  obey  him.  He  undertakes  to  correct 
them — to  coerce  them;  in  so  many  words,  he  undertakes  to  whip  them;  but  suppose  they  resist, 
and,  instead  of  his  whipping  them,  he  gets  whipped.  [Laughter.]  What  then?  I  am  a  magis- 
trate. Tou  come  before  me  to  lodge  your  complaint.  I  ask  you  what  is  the  matter — what  is  the 
nature  of  your  complaint?  You  say,  "look  at  these  two  black  eyes  of  mine — look  at  my  bloody 
no-ie."  How  did  it  happen,  I  ask.  You  say,  "  my  negroes  did  it."  I  inquire,  under  what  circum- 
stances did  they  do  it?  "  Why,"  you  say,  "they  refused  to  go  to  work  when  I  told  them,  and 
when  I  undertook  to  whip  them  for  it  they  turned  on  and  whipped  me.  I  want  you  to  punish 
them  for  it."  "Well.  I  am  a  magistrate  here,  and  will  do  so  with  pleasure  if  there  is  any  punish- 
ment prescribed  by  law;  but  is  there  any  Territorial  or  Congressional  law  fixing  the  punishment? 
He  answers,  "None,"  that  he  is  aware  of.  What  shall  I  do  with  them?  If  there  is  no  law  to 
punish,  I  must  discharge  them;  for  I  can  only  execute,  not  make  the  law.  You  undertook  to 
whip  them,  and  they  whipped  you  in  self-defence.  If  you  had  undertaken  to  whip  white  men, 
and  they  had  whipped  you,  they  surely  had  the  risrht  to  do  it;  but  you  undertook  to  whip  those 
ne^ro's,  and  they  whipped  you.  There  is  no  law  here  to  punish  them,  and  I  must,  of  course, 
acquit  them.  But  you  say,  "  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  protects  me."  Well,  sir,  here 
is  the  Constitution;  where  do  you  find  the  punishment  for  these  negroes  prescribed  in  the  Consti- 
tu'ioii  ?  "  Well,  but  they  told  me  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision  protected  me."  Does  that  prescribe 
the  punishment  for  the  offence  charged  against  these  negroes?  "  No;  it  has  only  said  I  have  the 
right  to  bring  my  slaves  into  the  Territories."  But  you  find,  when  you  get  there,  that  neither  the 
Constitution,  nor  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  nor  any  act  of  Congress,  nor  of  the  Territorial  Legisla- 
ture, has  prescribed  the  punishment  for  them  in  case  they  refuse  to  obey  your  orders.  Well, 
finding  that  your  slaves  are  worthless  to  you  there,  you  say:  "  Come  boys,  let's  go  back  to  Vir- 
ginia." But  they  do  not  want  to  go  back,  and  they  say;  "  No;  we  will  not  go.  In  Virginia  yoa 
are  a  better  man  than  we  are;  here  we  are  quite  as  good  as  you."  [Laughter.]  Well,  you  come 
to  me  again,  to  lod^je  your  complaint,  and  you  say  that  the  laws  of  Virginia  protect  you. 

Yes,  but  you  left  the  Virginia  laws  behind  you  when  you  came  into  Kansas.  For,  if  every  man 
who  comes  into  Kansas  brinirs  with  him  the  laws  of  his  State,  we  should  have  the  laws  of  thirty- 
three  States.    Which  are  we  to  execute? 

You  want  to  carry  your  negroes  back  to  Virginia,  and  you  attempt  to  force  them  to  go,  and  iu 
Belf-defence  they  put  you  to  death.  Your  friends  come  to  me,  and  it  is  proved  that  the  negroes 
killed  you  in  self-defence.  What  is  the  punishment?  None  whatever.  Now,  I  want  to  know 
if  these  negroes  are  not  just  as  free  there  as  the  white  man,  either  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  or  the  Dred  Scott  decision?  And  why?  Simply  because  they  are  not  property 
under  the  common  law,  and  you  require  positive  enactment  for  your  protection;  and  the  Ured 
Scott  decision  no  more  establishes  Slavery  in  the  Territories,  without  further  letjislation  for  its 
protection,  than  the  decision  of  the  same  Court,  in  1S19,  declaring  a  Bank  constitutional,  estab- 
lished a  Bank  of  the  United  States.  'How,  the  Bichmond  Enquirer  und  Mr.  Yancey  both  express 
great  surprise  that  any  Virginian  should  admit  that  Slavery  is  a  municipal  institution. 

Every  lawyer  of  intelligence  will  tell  you  it  is  a  municipal  institution,  protected  by  municipal 
law;  and  if  you  repexl  the  lasv  of  this  State  to-morrow,  which  provides  a  punishment  for  your 
Flave  for  resistance  to  your  authoritv,  your  slaves  are  as  free  as  you,  if  they  choose  to  claim  it; 
for,  if  you  cannot  punish,  you  cannot  hold  thorn  in  subjection  except  by  fon-e,  and  I  am  not  talking 
about  force  or  Lvnch  law,  but  Constitutional  law.  But  thoy  express  surprise  that  any  one  living 
in  a  slave  S^ate  ehoiUd  admit  that  Slavery  is  a  municipal  institu'ion. 

I  should  like  to  know  how  they  will  leconcile  their  vote  for  Mr.  Breckinridge,  who  holds  pre- 
cisclv  the  same  opinion,  which  is  of  record,  and  must  have  been  seen  by  them ;  for  one  of  the  first 
resolutions  offered  by  him,  when  he  was  a  meraberof  the  Kentucky  Legi^lature,  was  as  follows: — 


18  SPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  JOHN  M.  BOTTS. 

''Resolved,  Br  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Kentucky,  That  the  question  of 
Slaveiy  in  the  Territories,  being  wholly  local  and  domestic,  properly  belongs  alone  to  the  people 
who  inhabit  them." 
So  much  for  that  question. 

There  are  some  persons  who  say  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision  went  behind  that — which  I  utterly 
deny — and  declares  that  the  Constitution  itself  carried  Slavery,  of  its  own  force,  into  all  the  i'er- 
ritories.    It  does  no  such  thing,  in  my  opinion. 

If  the  Constitution  carried  it  into  the  Territories,  and  protected  it  there,  Slavery  would  exist  not 
only  in  the  Territories,  but  in  all  the  States,  for  the  Constitution  is  surely  not  less  binding  in  the 
States  than  in  the  Territories;  and  if  it  was  estabUshed  and  protected  by  the  Constitution,  there 
would  have  been  no  power  in  the  States,  by  their  Constitution  or  laws,  to  exclude  it,  for  that 
would  have  been  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which  declares,  as  I  hav« 
already  shown,  that — 

"This  Constitution  shall  be  supreme  law  of  the  land,  and  the  judires  in  every  State  shall  be 
bound  thereby,  anything  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  the  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding." 
An'd  even  in  Massachusetts  or  Vermont  any  citizen  slaveholder  might  have  claimed  his  proper- 
ty under  the  Constitution. 

Let  me  tell  you  that  this  idea  may  be  carried  to  a  great  extreme  and  to  a  dangerous  extent.  It 
is  a  delicate  subject,  and  the  man  who  proposes  to  take  the  institution  from  the  position  which  it 
now  occupies  as  o. peculiar  institution,  differing  from  all  other  property,  and  put  it  on  an  equality 
with  merchandise  generally,  and  say  because  you  have  the  right  to  carry  your  merchandise  into  the 
Territories,  you  have  the  right  to  carry  slaves  as  merchandise,  he  takes  a  very  hazardous  posi- 
tion. It  is  better  to  let  it  stand  as  it  is,  a  peculiar  institution,  not  subject  to  any  other  control 
than  our  own,  because  the  moment  you  propose  to  put  it  upon  a  footing  with  ordinary  merchan- 
dise, then  may  come  in  another  proposition,  that  Congress  may  regiilate  Slavery  and  the  slave- 
trade  between  the  States  as  it  does  merchandise. 

Let  us  hold  it  as  a  peculiar  institution,  consisting  of  both  persons  and  property,  and  never 
agree  to  put  it  upon  a  footing  with  common  merchandise;  for  if  you  do,  I  do  not  know  the  law- 
yer who  could  successfully  dispute  the  fact  that  Congress  would  have  the  power  to  regulate 
Slavery  between  the  States,  as  it  does  in  reference  to  every  other  article  of  commerce. 

Having  thus  discussed  the  issues  made  in  this  canvass,  I  propose  now  to  say, a  word  about  the 
candidates  and  their  records.  I  have  no  quarrel  with  Mr.  Douglas  n:)w — I  hope  none  for  the  fu- 
ture. He  is  in  a  progi'essive  and  improving  condition.  He  is,  as  they  say  of  persons  who  are 
getting  over  a  spell  of  sickness,  convalescent;  for  I  saw  that  in  a  speech  he  made  at  Harrishurg, 
Pennsylvania,  a  short  time  since,  he  has  come  over  to  us  on  the  great  principle  of  protection,  and 
he  told  the  people  of  Pennsylvania  that  their  coal  and  iron  had  never  received  that  share  of  pro- 
tection which  it  was  entitled  to  receive  at  the  hands  of  a  fostering  Government.  This  is  a  great 
step  in  the  right  direction.  But  what  operates  on  me  even  more  than  that,  is  that  he  is  a  good 
Union  man;  and  I  am  ready  to  shake  hands  with  him  and  embrace  all  good  Union  men,  at  a  time 
like  this. 

I  diifer  with  him,  politically,  on  his  doctrine  of  Squatter  Sovereignty.  I  differ  with  him  in  this. 
I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  plan  proposed  by  him,  and  which  was  established  by  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill,  which,  if  not  for  one  slight  difficulty,  would  perhaps  be  the  best  way  of  settling  the 
question.  I  think,  with  reference  to  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  country,  we  should  ad  be 
benefitted  by  transferring  it  to  the  Territorial  Legislature,  and  let  them  settle  it  for  themselves, 
for  the  reason  that  it  would  cease  to  be  a  national  question  and  become  entirely  local  in  irs 
effects.  The  difficulty  is,  that  there  is  a  constitutional  impediment  that  requires  Congress  to  legis- 
late for  the  Territories.  Xow,  my  arjiument  is,  that  if  the  Constitution  gives  to  Congress  the 
power  to  legislate  for  the  Territories,  Congress  must  exercise  that  power — that  if  we,  in  adopting 
that  Constitution,  have  conferred  that  power  on  Congress  as  the  only  body  that  could  safely  exer- 
cise it,  Congress  can  no  more  divest  itself  of  the  power,  and  transfer  ic  to  a  Territorial  Legisla- 
ture, than  it  can  transfer  the  war-making  power,  or  the  power  to  regulate  commerce  among  the 
Stares,  or  any  other  power  to  the  State  Legislatures;  and  the  only  security  we,  of  the  South,  have, 
is  to  insist  on  and  adhere  to  a  true  interpretation  of  the  Constitution,  and  a  rigid  enforcement  of 
all  its  provisions;  if  we  cannot  be  protected  in  that  way,  we  cannot  look  for  it  elsewhere. 

I  would  never  consent  to  the  imposition  of  Slavery  on  our  unwilling  people  in  the  Territories, 
and  if  they  desire  to  have  it,  I  would  offer  no  obstacle  to  the  accomplishment  of  their  wishes.  I 
am  in  favor  of  its  settlement,  therefore,  by  the  people  of  the  Territory;  but  they  must  come  up 
and  observe  the  forms  prescribed  by  the  Constitution,  and  obtain  the  assent  of  Congress  to  all 
their  laws,  as  they  have  done  from  the  foundation  of  the  Government  up  to  1854.  I  propose  to 
read  now  from  the  record  of  Mr.  Lincoln— and  let  no  man  go  from  here  to-night  and  say,  because 
I  do  so,  that  I  am  a  Lincoln  man  or  have  made  a  Lincoln  speech,  as  the  only  means  to  break  the 
influence  of  an  argument  they  cannot  answer,  and  destroy  the  effect  of  a  truth  that  may  be  crush- 
ing to  their  fondest  anticipations.  If  to  read  Lincoln's  record  makes  me  a  Lincoln  nian,  then  I 
am  also  obnoxious  to  the  charge  of  being  a  Breckinridge  man,  because  I  have  read  from  his 
record,  and  a  Douglas  man,  because  I  have  read  from  his  record  also.  But  I  am  neither;  and  I 
read  tuis  record  of  Lincoln's  without  intending  to  express  either  approval  or  disapproval,  for 
there  is  no  reason  why  I  should.  It  speaks  for  itself.  Let  that  be  borne  in  mind.  I  want  every 
man  to  stick  a  pin  there,  that  he  may  not  forget  it. 

I  have  a  high  and  patriotic  object  to  serve  in  reading  his  record,  looking,  as  I  do,  to  the  pos'i- 
hle  event  of  his  election,  in  the  course  of  three  weeks,  which  we  are  told  by  Governor  Wise  will 
be  "an  ovei-t  act  of  war,"  and  that  certain  States  mean  to  go  out  of  the  Union.  I  read  his  record 
that  you  may  see  and  determine  for  yourselves  whether  it  is  just  cause  for  a  dissohition  of  the 
Union.  I  mean  neither  to  approve  nor  disapprove  the  record  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  but  I  felt  that  I 
owed  it  to  you  and  to  myself  to  become  familiar  \vith  his  antecedents  before  I  presented  myself 
before  the  people  to  address  them  on  the  questions  that  are  so  soon  to  be  decided — and  I  have 
done  so,  and  am  not  to  be  deterred  from  doin^  full  justice  to  Mr.  Lincoln  by  any  lidiculous  and 
contemptible  charge  of  being  a  Free  Soiler  or  an  Abolitionist 


SPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  JOHN  M.  BOTTS.  19 

In  1837  Mr.  Lincoln  was  a  member  of  the  I^irislatare  of  Elinois,  and  that  Legislature  adopted 
ro.solunon,  of  an  obnoxious  chiiractor  to  the  South,  dcclarin!;  that  Congress  had  not  only  the  right 
to  abolish  Slavery  in  the  District  of  CoUimJiia  and  the  slave-trade  between  the  States,  but  that 
thev  were  bound  to  exercise  that  power;  and  Mr.  Lincoln  was  one  of  two  members  who  entered 
their  protest  upon  the  records  of  the  House,  in  which  he  took  the  {rround  that  while  Congress  liad 
the  power,  he  was  opposed  to  the  exercise  of  that  power,  except  upon  the  application  of  the  own- 
ers of  the  property,  and  then  only  on  condition  of  remuneration  to  the  owners.  I  served  in  Con* 
gress  with  Lincoln  in  1817;  I  know  very  little  about  him;  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  made  his  per- 
sonal acquiintMnce.  He  was  a  youny:  or  new  member,  and  did  not  take  a  very  axMive  part  in  the 
business  of  the  House,  and  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  was  thrown  into  his  comjiany.  Mr.  Goggin 
was  on  the  Committee  with  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  I  am  told,  testifies  to  his  high  qualities  as  a  man 
and  a  gentleman. 

Of  course  that  made  Go'j-gin  an  Abolitionist.  Mr.  Lincoln,  however,  might,  like  other  politi? 
ciins,  plead  the  statute  of  limitations  on  what  hid  occurred  23  years  ai;o  in  the  Illinois  Legisla- 
ture; so  I  traced  him  down  to  a  later  period.  Mr.  Benjamin,  in  the  Senate,  declared  he  was  a 
sounder  man  upon  the  Slavery  question  than  Douglas.  But  Mr.  Benjamin  was  a  Democrat — he 
could  aftbrd  to  say  so.  I  could  not,  for  that  would  estai)lish  Abolitionism  on  me.  Charity 
covereth  a  multitude  of  sins,  but  Democracy  covereth  charity.  [Great  applause.]  But  I  was 
reminded  the  other  day,  by  reading  a  speech  of  Mr.  Winthrop,  of  Boston,  lately  returned  from 
his  Kuropean  tour,  of  a  circumstance  which  occurred  while  I  was  in  Congress  with  Mr.  Lincoln; 
and  the  circumstance  to  which  Mr.  Winthrop  refers  was,  that  a  similar  proposition  contained  in 
the  resolutions  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  in  1837,  were  offered  in  Congress  in  IS  17,  and  that  Mr. 
Lincoln  offered  a  substitute  for  them,  carrying  out  his  views  as  expressed  in  18-37;  but  s'ill  this 
■was  thirteen  years  ago,  and  the  statute  of  limitations  might  be  pleaded  to  that,  so  I  traced  him 
down  to  a  still  later  period. 

Now  I  am  going  to  read  what  Lincoln  said.  In  18-58,  before  he  became  a  candidate  for  the 
Presidency,  and  when  he  was  a  candiiiate  for  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  had  every 
inducement  to  be  as  strongly  An ti -Slavery  as  possible  before  the  people  of  Illinois,  it  seems 
certain  questions  were  put  to  him  by  Douglas,  and  I  only  read  the  quettions  as  propounded  and 
the  answers  as  given: — 

Question  1.  I  desire  to  know  whether  Lincoln  to-day  stands,  as  he  did  in  18.j4,  in  favor  of  the 
unconditional  repeal  of  the  Fui^itive  Slave  law.  Answer.  I  do  not  now,  nor  ever  did  stand  in  favor 
of  the  unconditional  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law. 

Q.  2.  I  de.sirehim  to  answer  whether  he  stands  pledged  to-day,  as  he  did  in  18.>1,  against  the 
admission  of  anymore  Slave  States  into  the  Union,  even  if  the  people  want  them?  A.  I  do 
not  now,  nor  ever  did  stand  pledged  against  the  admission  of  any  more  Slave  States  into  the 
Union. 

Q.  3.  I  want  to  know  whether  he  stands  pledged  against  the  admission  of  a  new  State  into  the 
Union  with  such  a  Constitution  as  the  people  of  that  State  may  see  fit  to  make?  A.  I  do  not 
stand  pledged  against  the  admission  of  a  new  State  into  the  Union  with  such  a  Constitution  as 
the  people  of  that  State  may  see  fit  to  make. 

Q  4.  I  want  to  know  whether  he  stands  to-day  pledged  to  the  abolition  of  Slavery  in  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia?  A.  I  do  not  stand  pledged  to-day  to  the  abolition  of  Slavery  in  the  District 
of  Columbia, 

Q.  5.  I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he  stands  pledged  to  the  prohibition  of  the  Slave  trade 
between  the  diflferent  States?  A.  I  do  not  stand  pledged  to  the  prohibition  of  the  Slave  trade 
between  the  different  States. 

Q.  (3  I  desire  to  know  whether  he  stands  pledged  to  prohibit  Slavery  in  all  the  Territories  of 
the  United  States,  North  as  well  as  South  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line?  A,  I  am  implicitly, 
if  not  expressly  pledged  to  a  belief  in  the  right  and  duty  of  Congress  to  prohibit  Slavery  in  all  the 
United  States  TerriTories. 

Q.  7.  I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he  is  opposed  to  the  acquisition  of  any  new  territory, 
unlets  Slavery  is  fir^t  prohibited  therein?  A.  I  am  not  generally  opposed  to  honest  acquisition  of 
territory;  and,  in  any  s^ivon  case,  I  would  or  would  not  oppose  such  acquisition  accordingly  as  I 
might  think  such  acquisition  would  or  would  not  aggravate  the  Slavery  question  among  our- 
Bolves. 

At  a  subsequent  period  of  the  same  speech,  he  said  he  should  regret  that  any  Tenitory  should 
ask  to  come  into  the  Union  as  a  Slave  State;  but  if  the  people  thus  asked  admission  into  the 
Union,  he  did  not  consider  that  a  sufficient  ground  of  objection  to  their  admission.  In  another 
speech,  which  I  will  read  from,  he  says : — 

"  Before  proceeding  let  me  say,  I  think  I  have  no  prejudice  against  the  Southern  people.  They 
are  just  what  we  would  be  in  their  situation.  If  Slavery  did  not  now  exist  among  them,  they 
would  not  introduce  it.  If  it  did  now  exist  among  us,  we  should  not  instantly  give  it  up. — 
This  I  believe  of  the  masses  North  and  South.  Doubtless  there  are  individuals  on  both  sides 
who  would  not  hold  slaves  under  any  circumstances;  and  others  who  would  madlj'  introduce 
Slavery  anew  if  it  were  out  of  existence.  We  know  that  some  Southern  men  do  free  their 
slaves,  cro  North,  and  become  tip-top  Abolitionists;  while  some  Northern  ones  go  South  and 
become  most  cruel  slave  masters. 

"  When  Southern  people  tell  us  they  are  no  more  responsible  for  the  oriirin  of  Slavery  than  we, 
I  acknowledge  the  fact.  When  it  is  said  that  the  institution  exists,  and  that  it  is  very  difficult  to 
get  rid  of  it  in  any  satisfactory  way,  I  can  understand  and  appreciate  the  saying.  I  surely  will 
not  blame  them  for  not  doing  what  I  should  not  know  how  to  do  myself.  If  all  earthly  power 
were  iriven  me,  I  should  not  know  what  to  do  as  to  the  existing  institution.  My  first  impulse 
would"  be  to  free  all  the  slaves  and  send  them  to  Liberia,  to  their  own  native  land.  But  a  mo- 
ment's reflection  would  convince  me  that  whatever  of  high  hope  (as  I  think  there  is)  there 
may  be  in  this,  in  the  lonir  run,  its  sudden  execution  is  impossible.  If  they  were  all  landed  in  a 
dav  they  would  al'  perish  in  the  next  ten  days,  and  there  are  not  surplus  shipping  and  surplus 


20  SPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  JOHN  M.  BOTTS. 

money  enough  in  the  world  to  carry  them  there  in  many  times  ten  days.  What  then?  Free 
them  all  and  keep  them  among  us  underlings?  Is  it  quite  certain  that  this  betters  their  condi- 
tion? I  tbink  I  v^ould  not  hold  one  in  slavery  at  any  rate;  yet  the  point  is  not  clear  enough 
to  me  to  denounce  people  upon.  What  next?  Free  them,  and  make  them  politically  and  socially 
our  equals  ?  My  own  t'eeliags  will  not  admit  of  this ;  and  if  mine  would,  we  know  that  those  of 
the  great  mass  of  white  people  will  not.  Whether  this  feeling  accords  with  justice  and  sound 
judgment,  is  not  the  sole  que3iion,  if,  indeed,  it  is  any  part  of  it.  A  universal  feeling,  whether 
well  or  ill  founded,  cannot  be  safely  disregarded.  We  cannot,  then,  make  them  equals.  It  does 
seem  to  me  that  systems  of  gradual  emancipation  might  be  adopted;  but  for  their  tardiness  in 
this,  I  will  not  undertake  to  judge  our  brethren  in  the  South. 

"  When  they  remind  us  of  their  Constitutional  rights,  I  acknowledge  them,  not  grudg- 
ingly, but  fully  and  fairly ;  and  I  would  give  them  any  legislation  for  the  reclaiming  of 
their  fugitives,  which  should  not,  in  its  stringG-ncy,  be  more  likely  to  carry  a  free  man 
into  slavery,  than  our  ordinary  criminal  laws  are  to  hang  an  innocent  one. 

"But  all  this,  to  my  judgment,  furnishes  no  more  excuse  for  permitting  Slavery  to  go 
into  our  own  free  territory,  than  it  would  for  reviving  the  African  slave-trade  by  law. 
The  law  which  forbids  the  bringing  of  slaves  from  Africa,  and  that  which  has  so  long 
forbid  the  taking  of  them  to  Nebraska  can  hardly  be  distinguished  on  any  moral  principle ; 
and  the  repeal  of  the  former  could  find  quite  as  plausible  excuses  as  that  of  the  latter. 

"  I  have  reason  to  know  that  Judge  Douglas  knows  that  I  said  this.  I  think  he  haa 
the  answer  here  to  one  of  the  questions  he  put  to  me.  I  do  not  mean  to  allow  him  to 
catechize  me  unless  he  pays  back  for  it  in  kind.  I  will  not  answer  questions  one  after 
another,  unless  he  reciprocates ;  but  as  he  has  made  this  inquiry,  and  I  have  answered 
before,  he  has  got  it  without  my  getting  anything  in  return.  He  has  got  my  answer  on 
the  Fugitive  Slave  law. 

"  Now,  gentlemen,  I  don't  want  to  read  at  any  greater  length,  but  this  is  the  true  com- 
plexion of  all  I  have  ever  said  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  Slavery  and  the  black  race. 
This  is  the  whole  of  it,  and  anything  that  argues  me  into  his  idea  of  perfect  social  and 
political  equality  with  the  negro  is  but  a  specious  and  fantastic  arrangement  of  words, 
by  which  a  man  can  prove  a  horse-chestnut  to  be  a  chestnut  horse.  I  will  say  here, 
while  upon  this  subject,  that  I  have  no  purpose,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  interfere  with 
the  institution  of  Slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists,  I  believe  I  have  no  lawful  right 
to  do  so,  and  I  have  no  inclination  to  do  so.  I  have  no  pni'pose  to  introduce  political 
and  social  equality  between  the  white  and  the  black  races.  There  is  a  physical  difference 
between  the  two  which,  in  my  judgment,  will  probably  forever  forbid  their  living 
together  upon  the  footing  of  perfect  equality,  and  inasmuch  as  it  becomes  a  necessity  that 
there  must  be  a  difference,  I,  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  am  in  favor  of  the  race  to  which 
I  belong  having  the  superior  position. 

"  Now,  I  believe  if  we  could  arrest  the  spread,  and  place  it  where  Washington  and 
Jefferson,  and  Madison  placed  it,  it  would  be  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  and  the 
public  mind  would,  as  for  eighty  years  past,  believe  that  it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate 
extinction.  The  crisis  would  be  past,  and  tho  institution  might  be  let  alone  for  a  hundred 
years,  if  it  should  live  so  long  in  the  States  where  it  exists,  yet  it  would  be  going  out  of 
existence  in  the  way  best  for  both  the  black  and  the  white  races." 

We  have  all  heard  it  stated  that  be  said  that  if  he  could  not  come  into  Kentucky  and 
Virginia,  he  would  stand  on  the  banks  of  the  Ohio  and  fire  into  these  States.  Here  is  his 
own  explanation  of  what  has  been  thus  ascribed  to  him.     He  says  : 

"As  the  Judge  had  so  flattered  me,  I  could  not  make  up  my  mind  that  he  meant  to 
deal  unfairly  with  me;  so  I  went  to  work  to  show  him  that  he  misunderstood  the  whole 
scope  of  my  speech,  and  that  I  really  never  intended  to  set  the  people  at  ^var  with  one 
another.  As  an  illustration,  the  next  time  I  met  him,  which  was  at  Springfield,  I  used 
this  expression :  that  I  claimed  no  right  under  the  Constitution,  nor  bad  I  any  inclination 
to  enter  into  the  Slave  States  and  interfere  with  the  institutions  of  Slavery.  He  says, 
upon  that,  '  Lincoln  will  not  enter  into  the  Slave  States,  but  will  go  to  the  banks  of  the 
Ohio,  on  this  side,  and  shoot  over  !  He  runs  on,  step  by  step,  in  the  horse-chestnut  "style 
of  argument,  until  he  shall  have  extinguished  Slavery  in  all  the  States  ;  the  Union  shall 
be  dissolved.'  Now,  I  don't  think  that  was  exactly  the  way  to  '  treat  a  kind,  amiable, 
intelligent  gentleman.'  I  know  if  I  had  asked  the  Judge  to  show  when  or  where  it  was 
I  had  said  that,  if  I  didn't  succeed  in  firing  into  the  Slave  States  until  Slavery  should  be 
extinguished,  the  Union  should  be  dissolved,  he  could  not  have  shown  it.  I  understand 
what  he  would  do.  He  would  say,  '  I  don't  mean  to  quote  from  you,  but  this  was  the 
result  of  what  you  say.'  But  I  have  the  right  to  ask,  and  I  do  ask  now,  Did  you  not  put 
it  in  such  a  form  that  an  ordinary  reader  or  listener  would  take  it  as  an  expression  from 
me?" 

That  is  as  much  of  the  record  of  Lincoln  as  I  feel  to  be  necessary  to  read.  I  have 
heard  a  great  deal  about  him,  as  about  other  men  in  public  life,  but  I  do  not  believe  any- 
thing I  hear  about^any  public  man  until  it  is  proved  to  be  true.  I  have  good  roasim  for 
it ;  for  I  have  seen  such  frightful  pictures  drawn. of  myself  that  neither  I  nor  any  friend 
of  mine,  X  amsufe,  would  eyer  recognize  the  likeness. 


SPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  JOHN  M.  BOTTS.  21 

The  next  question  is,  I3  there  any  remedy  fur  all  this  ?  There  i.«,  and  it  is  one  which  we  can  sustain 
ourselves  upon,  by  tlie  Coiistitutiun,  by  our  own  eonsciunces,  by  common  honesty,  and  by  common 
aense.  Go  back  to  the  Constitution  as  our  fathers  made  it.  Tills  is  u  Jew  doctrine  preaclied — that 
of  forcing;  Slavery  into  a  Territory  where  it  is  not  wanted.  It  is  not  to  be  strengthened  but  weak- 
ened by  division.  It  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  strengthening  Slavery  that  the  Democratic  party 
want  to  carry  Slavery  into  the  Territories,  but  to  strengthen  the  Democratic  party  itself.  Cut  up 
the  slave  property,  and  divide  it  among  the  States  and  Territories,  according  to  their  federal  num* 
bers,  aud  it  would  not  exist  twenty  years  in  any  one  of  them. 

The  power  itself  would  become  so  weak,  and  the  antagonistic  power  of  free  labor  so  strong,  it 
Wuuid  be  extinguished  everywhere.  Keep  it  where  it  is,  and  it  constitutes  a  moral  force  which  will 
always  sustain  itself.  Senator  Muson  said  the  public  mind  had  undergone  a  great  change  siuce  the 
ndoption  of  the  Constitution. 

It  is  true — but,  unfortunately  for  him  and  his  party  North,  the  public  mind  has  not  kept  pace 
wilh  the  changes  of  the  South,  and,  what  is  of  still  more  cousequence,  the  Constitution  has  not 
changed.  Let  us  be  satisfied  to  keep  our  slaves  where  they  are;  and  let  us  demand,  at  all  hazards, 
and  yoder  all  circumstances,  that  we  shall  not  be  interfered  with  by  the  Northern  States.  That  ia 
all  it  ia  necessary  for  us  to  do;  but  in  order  to  do  that  you  must  first  get  rid  of  Democratic  politi- 
cians, [applause] — men  who  in  a  number  of  instances  have  not  the  heart  to  feel  nor  the  brain  to 
ci>noeive  the  cousequences  of  their  folly;  men  who  have  kept  alive  this  Slavery  agitation  because  it 
is  the  only  means  by  which  they  can  obtain  the  favor  of  the  people,  and  secure  the  power  to  them- 
selves, by  presenting  themselves  to  the  people  as  the  exclusive  champions  of  Slavery;  men  who 
never  did  own  a  slave  on  earth,  and  probably  never  will,  yet  denounce  me  who  am  a  slaveholder, 
and  all  the  slaveholders  in  the  country,  every  man,  no  matter  what  his  interest  in  slave  property,  aa 
an  Abolitionist,  unless  he  votes  the  Democratic  ticket;  who  have  kept  the  agitation  alive  for  their 
own  selfish  purposes,  and  who  will  keep  it  alive,  no  matter  what  will  bo  the  consequences  to  your 
peace  and  happiness,  or  to  the  safety  of  the  Union. 

Get  rid  of  Democracy. 

But  when  we  tell  them  that,  some  demagogue  will  take  the  stand  and  say.  Look  and  see  what 
Democracy  has  done  for  the  country  !  See  how  it  has  grown  and  expanded  under  Democracy  !  We 
were  but  thirteen  States,  and  now  there  are  thirty-two  I  We  were  but  3,000  000  inhabitants,  and 
now  we  have  grown  to  33,000  000  I  Well,  so  have  I  grown  up  and  expanded  under  Democracy. 
[Great  laughter.]  My  family  have  grown  up  and  expanded.  Your  families  have  grown  up  and  in- 
creased. But  pray  tell  me  what  had  Democracy  to  do  with  it?  Why,  the  bees  go  on  and  expand 
and  increase  their  numbers,  aud  when  they  get  too  thick,  they  swarm,  and  go  out  and  settle  new 
territory.  And  it  is  so  with  us.  The  natural  increase  of  our  people,  with  the  great  influx  of  for- 
eigners, has  swelled  our  population  to  32,000,000.  Would  it  not  have  done  the  same  thing  under 
any  other  rule  ?  Let  us  try  it  awhile.  I  am  afraid  to  trust  them  any  longer — a  party  that  has 
brought  us  to  the  verge  of  the  precipice — as  I  lean  now  over  this  platform,  threatening  to  precipi- 
tate us  into  the  gulf  of  Disunion. 

They  have  gone  too  far  to  recede.  They  cannot  save  the  Union.  Try  some  other  party,  and  see 
if  they  cannot  save  the  Union.  At  all  events,  let  us  content  ourselves  with  the  question  of  Slavery 
as  it  has  existed  from  the  formation  of  the  Government.  Leave  it  (Slavery)  to  climate  and  produc- 
tion to  regulate  itself,  and  there  will  be  no  difficulty  on  the  snbject.  If  we  could  change  the  face 
of  nature,  and  transfer  their  long,  cold  Winters  of  the  North  to  the  South,  and  our  long,  hot  Sum- 
mers to  the  North,  they  would  in  twenty  years  become  the  Pro-Slavery  party,  and  we  the  party  of 
Freedom. 

Well,  r.ow,  gentlemen,  I  have  said  nothing  personally  against  any  of  the  candidates 
for  the  Presidency,  because  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  do  so  ;  and  I  stand  here  to-night  dis- 
claiming any  intention  or  desire  to  speak  harshly  of  any  one  of  them,  or  to  glorify 
another.  I  know  all  of  them  personally.  Breckinridge,  I  know  well,  and  I  know  him 
to  be  an  honorable,  high-minded,  intelligent  gentleman,  and  one  against  whose  character 
nothing  can  be  said.  Yet  I  think  there  is  one  strong  objection  to  the  election  of  Bn-ck- 
inridge,  I  do  not  moan  to  say  that  he  is  a  disunionist,  but  he  has  lent  his  name  to  a  jtarty 
which  had  its  origin  in,  and  whose  avowed  purpose  is  the  dissolution  of  the  Union.  iStill 
further  is  it  from  me  to  say  he  is  an  Abolitionist.  I  should  feel  myself  dishonored  to 
stand  before  you  and  bring  a  charge  against  him  that  I  did  not  believe  to  bo  true,  to 
effect  the  election  of  any  man  or  the  success  of  any  party. 

Another  objection  to  Mr.  Breckinridge  is,  that  he  is  too  young,  too  inexperienced,  to 
take  charge  of  this  great  empire  and  administer  all  its  affairs,  foreign  and  domestic.  Mr. 
Douglas  is  a  man  of  more  enlarged  experience  in  public  affairs,  and  a  gentleman  against 
whom  nothing  is  to  be  said.  But  I  think  he  deserves  some  jiunishment,  independent  of 
my  opposition  to  him  on  account  of  his  Democracy,  for  his  agency  in  the  repeal  of  tlio 
Missouri  Compromise.  It  may  bo  that  we  shall  ourselves  have  to  support  him  some  of 
these  diiys*  I  cannot  tell.  I  think  the  two  wings  of  the  party  are  so  far  apart  that  they 
are  not  likely  to  get  together  again,  and  the  Union  portion  of  the  Democracy  and  our- 
selves must  coalesce  in  tln^  future.  I  do  not  see  where  they  are  going  to ;  they  must  come 
to  us;  we  must  go  to  them,  or,  perhaps,  we  shall  have  t<>  meet  half  way.  What  is  tho 
rea.son  of  the  difference  that  now  exists  between  the  politicians  and  tho  people  in  this 
State?  It  is  because  there  never  was  any  bond  of  sympathy  between  ihem.  The  Calhoun 
wing  held  the  balance  of  pow^r  originally  between  the  Old  Line  "Whigs  and  the  Demo- 
cratic party,  and  the  Democrats  were  afraid  to  trust  them,  and  afraid  to  offend  them,  and 


22  SPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  JOHN  M.  BOTTS. 

from  the  first  tboy  have  never  given  the  Old  Line  Democrats  a  crumb.  The  Douglas 
men  are  in  no  better  condition  than  we  poor  Whigs  have  been.  They  have  been  kept 
shivering  in  the  cold,  without  food  or  clothing.  [Laughter.]  They  want  shelter,  and 
the  onl}^  way  they  can  got  it  is  to  come  to  us.     [Renewed  laughter.] 

As  to  Mr.  Bell,  I  know  him,  too.  I  have  heard  but  one  charge  against  him.  I  sup- 
port him  not  only  because  he  is  the  candidate  of  my  party,  but  I  support  hira  because  I 
know  him  to  be  a  sound,  national,  conservative,  Union.loving  man — a  man  of  enlarged  ex- 
perience in  public  life ;  and  because  I  look  upon  the  ticket  presented  by  the  party  to 
which  I  belong  as  being  the  most  national  that  has  been  presented  to  the  country.  I 
have  heard  that  the  charge  has  been  made — it  was  never  made  in  my  presence — that  he 
is  an  Abolitionist.  Well,  I  would  not  take  the  trouble  to  refute  it;  and  I  would  not 
offend  you,  nor  do  the  injustice  to  him,  to  regard  that  charge  as  worthy  of  a  moment's 
consideration.  [Applause.]  The  man  that  would  consider  the  charge,  is  not  worthy  of 
voting.  He  ought  to  be  excluded  by  the  Commissioners  on  the  ground  that  the  right  of 
suffrage  is  withheld  from  all  men  of  unsound  mind.  [Laughter  and  applause.]  The 
only  answer  I  have  to  make  to  it,  is  to  read  from  a  paper  called  the  Sentinel,  a  Democratic 
paper  published  in  Alabama,  which  says: 

"  How  foul !  The  Montgomery  Advertiser  boldly  charges  Mr.  Bell  with  being  an  Aboli- 
tionist. We  are  no  defender  of  John  Bell  and  his  party;  but  a  more  base  and  waiiton 
charge  never  was  made  against  any  man,  than  that  John  Bell  is  unfriendly  to  negro 
Slavery.  There  is  just  about  as  much  truth  or  propriety  in  charging  Abolitionism 
against  any  gentleman  of  Lowndes  or  Montgomery  counties.  The  man  who  charges  John 
Bell  with  being  an  Abolitionist,  does  it  through  a  desire  to  lie  upon  his  fellow  man." 

This  is  as  plain  and  emphatic  as  it  is  true,  and  we  commend  it  to  the  consideration  of 
the  Breckinridge  orators  and  editors  generally. 

Now  in  regard  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  I  have  only  to  say,  if  he  was  the  purest,  wisest,  and  most  ex- 
perienced of  all,  there  is  an  insurmountable  objcclioa  to  him,  and  that  is  that  in  all  rcsp;  cts  1 
am  a  national  man  in  every  sense  of  the  word,  and  I  could  under  no  circumstances  vote  for  a 
man  who  is  asectional  candidate,  no  matter  to  what  party  he  may  belong.  But  candor  eom'Kls 
nie  to  say  that  he  is  not  more  sectional  than  Breckinridge,  and  not  half  so  dangerous  us  tlie 
party  Mr.  Breckinridge  represents. 

Now,  one  or  two  subjects  briefly  touched,  and  I  quit.  1  have  been  asked  what  I  thought  it 
was  the  duty  of  the  South  to  do  in  the  event  of  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  I  answer,  nothing 
in  the  world,  but  submit  as  we  have  always  done.  I  have  no  desire  to  keep  secret  from  any 
man  what  I  would  do,  for  I  would  wear  my  heart  upon  my  sleeve,  and  if  every  political  opinion 
I  entertain  could  be  summed  up  in  one  word,  I  would  have  that  word  on  my  breast  that  every 
man  might  read  it  who  felt  an  interest  in  knowing.  His  election  would  constitute  no  reason 
for  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  nor  would  that  of  any  other  free  white  man.  A  native  citizen  of 
tlie  United  States,  35  years  of  age,  the  only  qualificatioa  required  by  the  Constitution  ;  first  he 
h:is  the  Senate  fixed  against  him,  the  politicaf  complexion  of  which  cannot  be  changed  within 
the  next  four  years,  and  the  Supreme  Court  is  against  him,  so  there  is  another  source  of  protcc 
tion  to  the  South.  So  that  if  Lincoln  were  elected  and  even  prepared  to  offer  violence  and  out- 
rage  tothe  South,  1  would  not  be  prepared  to  dissolve  the  Union.  If  he  were  elected  and  should 
recommend  violent  and  extreme  measures  to  Congress,  I  should  not  think  the  time  for  dissolu- 
tion  had  arrived.  His  recommendation  might  be  repudiated  by  both  branches  of  Congress  ;  but 
suppose  Congress  adopted  his  recommendation.  Would  the  time  for  a  dissolution  then  have 
arrived  ?  I  think  not,  because  this  sacred  little  book,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  pro- 
vides another  remedy,  and  that  is  the  Supreme  Court.  I  would  go  to  the  Supreme  Court,  I 
would  there  proclaim  that  Congress  had  no  power  to  interfere  with  Slavery,  and  demand  that 
justice  and  right  should  be  done  me.  But,  if  the  Supreme  Court  refused  me  redress,  then  I 
would  say  the  time  has  come  for  revolution,  and  let  him  take  the  lead  who  will,  I  will  follow. 
[Great  applause.]  But  I  never  will  consent  to  plunge  this  country  into  all  the  horrors  of  civil 
war  ;  to  involve  your  children  and  my  children;  to  inflict  such  a  calamity  upon  the  nation  ;  to 
oppose  brother  to  brother  and  father  to  son  in  deadly  conflict,  I  never  will  until  1  have  exha-usted 
every  remedy  provided  by  the  Constitution.     (Great  applause.) 

I  have  been  asked,  also,  "Suppose  South  Carolina  thinks  proper  to  go  out  of  the  Union  : 
•what  would  you  do  then  ?"  I  have  heard  some  patriotic  gentlemen  say  no  Federal  troops 
should  ever  cross  this  State  while  they  are  alive  ;  but  if  I  were  asked  what  I  was  going 
to  do  in  such  an  event,  the  first  inquiry  I  would  make  is,  Who  is  coming  at  the  head  of 
the  Federal  troops?  Who  is  going  to  take  command  of  the  troops  ?  Is  it  Lincoln  ?  No; 
they  will  not  wait  for  his  inauguration.  Will  it  be  Mr.  Buchanan  ?  No ;  he  will  stay 
in  Washington  and  manage  the  finances,  for  which  he  seems  particularly  well  qualified. 
[Laughter.]  Now,  I  think  if  any  army  were  to  march  here,  it  would  be  headed  by  Gen. 
Scott.  [Applause.]  And  then,  if  he  came  along  on  his  way  to  the  South,  it  would 
depend  on  how  many  men  he  had  with  him  what  I  would  do.  If  he  had  enough  to  ac- 
complish his  object,  I  would  be  satisfied  to  give  him  safe  escort  through  the  State.  But 
if  not,  I  would  buckle  on  my  knapsack  and  shoulder  my  musket  and  go  along  with  him. 


\ 


f 


SPEECH  OF  THE  HON.  JOHN  M.  BOTTS.  23 

[Applause.]  Now,  do  not  let  us  confound  our  personal  sympathies  with  the  higher  obli- 
gations of  public  law  and  public  duty.  I  do  not  mean  I  would  literally  go  along  with 
him  ;  he  would  not  expect  such  a  thing  of  me  ;  but  I  only  mean  to  appeal  to  the  obligii- 
tions  of  duty,  and  state  what  I  think  we  ought  all  to  do. 

If  South  Carolina  declares  herself  out  of  the  Union,  what  aspect  does  she  present  to 
the  United  States?  Is  she  a  State  in  the  Union?  If  so,  the  laws  must  be  enforced  ia 
the  Union.  But  if  she  is  no  longer  a  State  in  the  Union,  she  assumes  the  position  of  a 
foreign  enemy  to  the  United  States,  and  also  to  Virginia  ;  and  am  I  to  be  asked  to  givo 
aid  to  the  enemy  of  the  States?  or  am  I  to  be  called  a  traitor  for  obeying  the  Constitu- 
tion of  my  State  and  of  the  Union  ?  She  is  an  enemy  to  the  States  and  to  you.  I  owe  no 
allegiance  to  South  Carolina  because  she  is  a  Slave  State,  and  I  would  as  soon  march  to 
South  Carolina  to  enforce  one  law  as  I  would  to  Massachussetts  to  enforce  another, 
whether  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  or  any  other,  or  to  reduce  either  to  submission  if  they 
were  rash  enough  to  assume  the  position  of  a  foreign  enemy  to  me  and  mine.  I  am  not 
a  slave  to  Slavery,  and  I  will  not  make  a  fool  of  myself  to  please  fools.     [Applause.] 

But  I  apprehend  there  will  be  no  need  of  forces  passing  through  the  State.  Certainly  there  ia 
no  power  by  which  South  Carolina  or  any  other  State  can  be  restrained  from  going  out  of  the  Union, 
if  she  thinks  proper  to  be  guilty  of  so  wild  and  rash  an  act,  nor  from  committing  any  other  act  of 
violence  or  wrong  upon  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  the  country,  unless  the  Federal  Executive  shall 
be  disposed  to  exercise  the  authority  entrusted  to  him  by  the  Constitution,  and  the  people  who  have 
deposited  that  Constitution  in  his  hands  for  safe  keeping;  but  if  he  has  the  courage  and  the  jciV^ 
he  will  not  lack  the  jjower  to  keep  the  Union  together  as  it  was  when  he  took  upon  himself  the  re- 
sponsibility and  the  obligation  to  see  that  the  laws  were  faithfully  executed. 

As  Gen.  Jackson  said  in  his  proclamation  :  "  The  laws  of  the  United  States  must  be  executed.  I 
have  no  discretionary  power  on  the  subject.  My  duty  is  emphatically  pronounced  in  the  Coustitu- 
tioQ.  Those  who  told  you  that  you  might  peaceably  prevent  their  execution  deceived  you  :  they 
could  not  have  been  deceived  themselves;  they  knew  that  a  forcible  opposition  could  alone  prevent 
the  execution  of  the  laws,  and  they  knew  that  such  opposition  must  be  repelled." 

But  I  said  I  did  not  apprehend  that  there  would  be  any  necessity  for  sending  troops  through  Viry 
ginia,  although  a  force  that  would  be  absolutely  irresistible  could  be  sent  if  necessary.  The  Presi- 
dent may  certainlj-  exercise  a  sound  discretion  as  to  the  best  mode  of  executing  the  law  :  and  if  it  can 
be  done  without  blood.^hed,  then  that  is  the  best  way  to  do  it.  Then  let  him  ask  of  Congress  at 
an  early  day  for  the  re-enactment  of  the  bill  of  the  2nd  of  March,  1S32 :  "For  the  colleitiun  of 
duties  on  ihiporis." 

Let  him  then  under  that  act  establish  his  Custom  Ilouse  on  board  the  Steamer  Susquehanna,  sta- 
tioned in  the  harbor  of  Charleston,  then  cut  off  all  mail  facilities  and  intercourse,  allow  no  remit- 
tances to  go  in,  and  no  cotton  to  go  out,  and  then  the  people  would  begin  to  inquire  into  the  reason 
for  this  precipitate  and  passionate  action  on  the  part  of  the  politicians,  they  would  find  that  Lin- 
coln's election  was  only  the  pretext  and  not  the  came  of  the  disturbance  of  their  peace  :  they 
■would  find  that  they  had  been  misled:  and  that  without  cau.-e,  they  had  been  induced,  by  seductive 
appeals  to  their  passions  and  prejudices,  to  cast  off  the  most  magnificent  endowment  thai  a  kind  Provi- 
dence had  ever  bestowed  on  his  unworthy  creatures*  and  it  would  lead  to  a  revolution  and  secession 
within  the  limits  of  South  Carolina  in  less  than  thirty  days. 

South  Carolina  is  a  very  extreme  State — Massachusetts  is  another.  I  do  not  think  it 
just  to  take  either  as  reflecting  fairly  the  conservative  sentiment  of  either  section  of  tho 
country.  There  is  no  more  fairness  in  looking  on  the  extreme  States  of  the  North  as 
fair  exjponents  of  the  public  sentiment  there,  than  that  South  Carolina  is  a  fair  exponent 
of  the  public  sentiment  of  the  South. 

These  are  the  opinions  I  entertain  upon  the  issues  involved  in  the  present  canvass.  I 
have  expressed  them  fully  and  freely,  but  I  hope  I  have  left  no  handle  by  which,  through 
misrepresentation,  our  adversaries  will  injure  us.  I  have  endeavored  to  present  my 
views  in  a  manner  perfectly  inoflensive  to  any  candidate,  and,  I  trust,  to  the  feelings  of 
all  here  present. 

If  what  I  have  said  constitutes  a  submissionist,  I  am  a  submissionist ;  but  I  submit  to 
the  Constitution  and  laws  of  my  country,  and  he  who  does  not  is  a  traitor  to  both. 

I  return  you  my  thanks  for  your  patientiattention,  and  hope  I  have  done  as  much  service 
for  the  Democratic  party  as  the  Dc^niocracy  this  morning  exjiected  of  me. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  concluded  my  argument,  and  again  express  my  acknowledgments 
for  the  very  flattering  manner  in  which  it  has  been  received. 

At  the  close  of  Mr.  Botts's  remarks,  there  was  one  universal  cheer,  which  rung  tlirough 
the  Hall,  and  being  caught  up  by  the  outside  crowd,  was  continued  until  it  died  away 
in  the  far  distance  of  the  suburbs.  The  reporter  has  never  witnes.sed  more  enthusiasm 
exhibited  in  favor  of  a  public  speaker  ;  and  it  was  rendered  the  more  impressive  in  this 
instance,  from  tho  fact  of  the  vnry  vindictive  spirit  recently  manifested  toward  him  by  tho 
leading  political  organs  in  the  State. 


Mi 


, 


